• Creation or Evolution?

    Creation or Evolution?
    by R. T. Woodworth

    If you had to debate with someone over the merits of creation versus evolution called a science, what would you say? Remember that your faith in the Bible record of how God created the heavens and the earth, plants, animals and man, is really not science, but what you believe to be the truth of our origin and development without any scientific evidence necessary.

    On the other hand, evolution is a theory of how Charles Darwin explained the development of various species which might have come from one life source a long time ago until we now have all the varieties of animals, fish, birds, insects, amphibians, and reptiles.

    Since his theory could eliminate any divine source as Creator and supernatural design, and the development of species were left to chance, it fit in with the godless economic concepts designed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in Germany who asked Darwin if they could dedicate their English version of Das Kapital to him. Darwin refused because he said atheistic communism was detrimental to intellectual freedom.

    Sigmund Freud in Austria was developing his concept of how human behavior was related to infancy and childhood experiences, ignoring spiritual influence and divine intervention. Friedrich Nietzche was educated in a humanistic gymnasium in Prussia where he denied the existence of God also. These contemporaries of Darwin all grasped on to the concoction of evolution and gave it credence among the intellectual communities of Europe to overthrow the stronger influence the church had on people's beliefs.

    Unfortunately, it still controls and conquers the minds of many scholars who do not acknowledge God as Creator and who cling to the nebulous theories of how super-intelligence proceeded from utter nonsense, how intricate designs developed from infinite chance circumstance, and a cosmos occurred with no cosmology or purpose.

    But with all the technological advances in the past century, from invention of awkward motor cars to awesome automobiles; from the Wright Brothers' half mile ride at Kitty Hawk to a walk on the moon; from Marconi's scratchy radio crystal to wireless phones with satellite transmission; from the telegraph in Morse Code to audio and video transmission around the world in a second of time. All these are genuine advances in science and technology, but why do some still cling to the unscientific basis of a passé theory of evolution?

    Evolution of the species is a philosophy, a theory, an hypothesis, but not a scientific law. It cannot be proven. It cannot be duplicated in any laboratory. It sets no precedents. It cannot withstand the rigors of scientific inquiry, nor establish any predictable outcome for an experiment with measured values. Evolution has no teleology, no predictive final cause. Organic life can only be explained by the action of design and purpose, not by mechanical circumstances. There are scientific laws which govern chemical and mechanical and developmental changes in all life and inanimate objects. Nothing in nature is the result of chance and happenstance. Everything in nature works by design, for a purpose and is caused by laws, not flaws. Certain causes produce certain effects.

    Before you fall for gratuitous propaganda with pseudo-scientific explanations of the origin and development of anything, listen to the only Book which only undergoes revisions to help us understand original meanings in our vernacular, called the Holy Bible.

    "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," is the first sentence in the divine record of eternal truths. Man cannot originate or create anything but ideas, and even these have some primary genesis. Man cannot create matter nor energy nor light nor heat because these are the results of physical laws. Man cannot create life of any kind. He can only reproduce life according to natural laws established by supernatural power and life source. A turtle and a dove cannot be crossed to make a turtledove. There is no such thing as a man-ape no matter how many physical similarities man may ape. They are different species with different DNA gene chains whose lineage and linkage is incompatible with any scientific laws.

    The fourth commandment includes this reminder, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them." (Ex 20:11). Even after the dispersion when some Israelites went back to restore the wall and temple in Jerusalem, they were reminded to remember God as their Creator: "You alone are the LORD; You have made the heaven, the heaven of heavens with all their host, the earth and everything on it, the seas and all that is in them, and You preserve them all." (Neh. 9:6).

    The Psalmist says: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth." (Ps. 33:6). In Psalm 102:25, David says, "Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment, like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed." If there are any changes to the earth, its climate, its atmosphere, its land and water area proportion, animal extinction, or man's extension—it is all up to God, not man—nor science!

    All through the Bible God is the Creator and Controller, Christ Jesus is the Light and Life of men, and the Holy Spirit is the means whereby all life is wholly dependent upon Him. In God life has divine design and destiny. In evolution life is disordered and haphazard.

    Yes, it takes faith to believe in God and creation, but it also takes a tremendous leap into faith in the fantasy of evolution. It is a case of believing in the deity of God or deifying of man. God's Word still stands after 6000 years and will stand forever. Scientific texts have to be revised constantly as science changes and theories are revised and new technology is discovered, God creates something from nothing, while men create nothing from something. Science can only make something of something, and change matter by Laws God already established and in accordance with inherent perpetual properties. It is a scientific law that energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed in form.

    God not only created heavens and earth, but man, too. "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Gen. 1:27). Listen to Moses tell Israel: "For ask now concerning the days that are past, which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and ask from one end of heaven to the other, whether any great thing like this has happened, or anything like it has been heard." (Deut. 4:32).

    The Bible is full of references to God's creative power. How did the world begin? GOD! How did men begin? GOD! Who runs the earth and maintains its equilibrium in space? GOD! Who has a plan for its end? GOD! Evolution did not start anything nor does it run anything, nor have any predictable plan for the end of the world. Brilliant scientific minds see that our universe is immensely complicated indicating evidence of a divine designer. Professor Roger Rusk who taught physics at the University of Tennessee for nearly 40 years was a firm believer in the creativity of God and naivete of men. He wrote a book about it called The Other End of The World (which also contained the Identity message).

    Evolution has never been observed, nor can it be experimented under laboratory controlled conditions. There are no scientific laws in evolution only hypotheses and hyperboles. Evolution has no predictable outcome, only random chance results. Evolution allows no intelligent teleology nor cosmology. Evolution is a man-made philosophy (by men opposed to the idea of God), not a system of laws as is science. It should not be taught in any science classes except as the observation used by some to explain the similarities and diversities of various life forms.

    "Science fundamentally, is a game," wrote one scientist in a book called The Game of Science (p.137). "It is a game with one overriding and defining rule .... Let us see how far we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural." (cited from US News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991, in an article called "The Creation," pp. 56-64). Harvard Professor Richard Lewontin said, "Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ("The Inferiority Complex," New York Review).

    The current issue of Scientific American carries an article on what scientists think about God called "Scientists and Religion in America" (pp. 88-93, Sept. 1999). The subtitle states, "Science and religion are engaging in more active dialogue and debate, but a survey suggests that scientists' beliefs have changed little since the 1930s, and top scientists are more atheistic than ever before."

    I have news for them: Christians have not had to change their beliefs nor their Bible to fit their faith, nor has God changed. "I am the Lord, I do not change; therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob," says Malachi 3:6. New evidence now shows how former ideas about billions of years to accomplish drastic changes in the earth are now dwindled to merely months. The age of some rocks and supposed erosions requiring millions of years are reduced to produce the strata and formations in geology in just months.

    The official name of Sunset National Monument is the Sunset Volcanic National Monument, but this imaginary volcano was proposed by evolutionists to be millions of years in the making. Now a Professor Shoemaker has demonstrated that Sunset Crater is really a meteor crater formed in one sudden vast explosion. In the last 50 years other scientists have confirmed that earth has hundreds of meteor craters, some less than 200 years old. Parade magazine section of the Baltimore Sun contains an article on "What Rocks Say" by David H. Levy. While still clinging to the concept of earth in billions of years, it does demonstrate that their conclusions are still inconclusive.

    "The cause of this critical change in life is unknown," one caption reads. Another says, "A long ice age accompanied this event, but we do not know if that was a cause or an effect." Another speculation is summed as: "Could this have led to mass extinctions?" Still another confesses not scientific accuracy but human guesswork: "Cotylosaurs, possibly the missing link between mammals and reptiles were lost." Further inferences are drawn in this article to indicate that scientists really do not know how old the earth is, or when man began. Yet public school teachers will start again this fall to fill the minds of our children with doubtful ideas as if they were indelible scientific facts.

    What did Charles Darwin himself think about his radical concept of the Origin of Species? He doubted the validity of his theory for 20 years before he published it. Then he fretted longer over the conflict with religion and wrote just before he died, "I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect." Those who adopt the theory of evolution as the foundation for all scientific inquiry, are basing their trust on slippery, miry ground.

    Darwinism suffers from the same inadequacies of Newtonian physics when Isaac Newton assumed one could accelerate beyond the speed of light, and that there could always be a conservation of energy, momentum and mass. Modern science has disproved these theories in astronomy and atomic energy. Why then do they still cling to Darwin's 130-year-old theory as if it were currently relevant? Only because it conflicts with religious views which they discredit and want the world to reject. Two Iowa professors wrote: "As a matter of fact, creationism should be discriminated against .... No advocate of such propaganda should be trusted to teach science classes or administer science programs anywhere ... if they are now doing so, they should be dismissed." (Journal of the National Center for Science Education, 1984, p.19).