"Creation Makes Sense"

Col.1:13-23 May 23/04

Divergent Views

Before we get into a serious discussion of the origins of life, here's some humour from Chuck Swindoll. He notes there are two very practical explanations of the creation of man and woman - one is the man's view, the other, the woman's account. Are you ready? The woman's view of creation goes like this: God made the man and looked at him and said, "I can do better than that," and He made the woman.

      What is the man's view? God made the beasts and man and then He rested. And then He created woman. And neither beast nor man nor God has rested since!

      Unfortunately, many in the educational system laugh at the concept of creation itself, not just jokes about our beginnings. It is disturbing to hear that evolution is still being so dogmatically presented as propaganda in our public schools and colleges, particularly as the evidence against it continues to mount. Darwin's theory is actually a religious myth masquerading as science. For science has to do with what is actual and factual, measurable, testable, logical. Science is the study of the natural world based on observation, deduction, deriving a hypothesis, which leads to experimentation; from that comes the development of operational theories and so-called "laws". My own master's research at Guelph around 1980 studied drought and density stress resistance in twelve varieties of corn. You review the literature, come up with an experimental design, carry out the replications, take measurements of many variables, analyse the data, and draw conclusions. Unfortunately evolution not only can't be tested, it lacks evidence, so increasingly is coming under attack in scientific circles. Yet because the secular system desires an a-moral view of origins, it continues to be widely taught. With devastating ethical results.

      A couple of notes at the outset. I'm not saying it's necessary to be a creationist in order to be a Christian. There are believers who hold other views (such as what's called "theistic evolution") but I'd still argue it's bad science.

      Also, by "evolution" I don't mean "micro-evolution", that is, the appearance or receding of various genetic traits or genuses within a particular species. This is an observable phenomenon, long used by plant and animal breeders to select desired traits based on genetic diversity pre-existing within the given "gene pool" of that species. In the following remarks I'm referring to "macro-evolution" on a cosmic or planetary scale -- the grand scheme that some primeval chemical "soup" suddenly produced living protoplasm, and thence land animals and eventually homo sapiens eventually emerged from the slime. We'll begin from a theological perspective, then switch to more practical reasons to accept creation as our mode of origin.

Biblical Belief Acknowledges Christ's Lordship over Nature

Col.1(16f) says, "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." For a Christian, Jesus is at the centre of all of life. All was created by Him, for Him; everything holds together in Him, He's the "glue" that keeps the universe from exploding. John says (1:2f), "He was with God in the beginning; through Him all things were made."

      For Christians, our view of the universe begins at the cross and works out from there. Paul says in 1Cor.15(3f) the things that are "of first importance", that save us and we can "take a stand on" in Christianity are, primarily, that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures..." No argument from most authorities that Christ died. Paul notes, "for our sins": Jesus clarified His purpose at the Last Supper -- the bread and wine representing His body given "for you", His blood "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Mt.26:28) This is where the secularists balk: it presumes a moral accountability to our Maker. Philip Johnson, a law professor who challenges Darwinism on campuses, observes: "I have found that any discussion with modernists [or liberals] about the weaknesses of the theory of evolution quickly turns into a discussion of politics, particularly sexual politics." Naturalism, which is behind evolutionary teaching, contends that nature is all there is -- there is no God -- so ethical ideals and standards need not be based on what God says, but what humans prefer. That dispenses with that nagging concept called guilt. Or so they'd like to think.

      "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures..." The witnesses beheld in Jesus' death an uncanny fulfillment of prophecies written centuries before (such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22). They would argue as a result that, in Jesus, God was orchestrating historical events to achieve His purposes.

      Also, according to Paul, Christ "was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" -- and appeared to many over the course of the following weeks. The story of Easter is backed by the blood of the earliest martyrs; dozens of people don't die defending what they know to be a lie or hoax. The Christian faith hinges on Jesus' resurrection; it represents the undoing and transcending of death, a new and startling creative event superceding this fallen sin-shot decaying order. The Risen Lord possessed a glorious body which could walk through walls, appear or disappear at will; he was disguised on the road to Emmaus, vanished after breaking the bread at the inn, ate the piece of broiled fish to prove He wasn't a ghost, was lifted up to the sky at the Ascension. A new, spiritual, glorified body. Perhaps related to light or radiation in some way; we now routinely use X-rays to "see through" matter, gamma rays also go right through solids. However constructed, this body was spectacularly different, a sneak peek of the life to come.

      God's miraculous working through Jesus' death and Resurrection is consistent with Christ's earthly life and God's operating with Israel through the preceding centuries. John 2 records Jesus' first miracle as turning water into wine. He arranged for a marvelous catch of fish, both in introducing Himself to the apostles, and after the resurrection. He healed many of serious physical ailments. He raised Lazarus and others from the dead. He fed the crowds by multiplying the loaves and fishes. Walking on water, stilling the storm - all these miracles demonstrate Jesus' mastery over the elements.

      The Bible identifies the role of miracles as "signs to accompany" the preaching of the Good News -- the Lord "confirmed His word" by the signs that accompanied evangelism (Mk.16:17; Jn.20:30f) This wasn't mere magic for amusement, but visible proof to back up the authority of the spoken message. Jesus cautioned people about their need to see miraculous signs before they would believe; yet He accommodated their desire for such signs, as when he healed the royal official's son, or appeared to Thomas who doubted the others' account after Easter (Jn.4:48-50; 20:25-29).

      The Old Testament contains many examples of God intervening in the physical order to deliver His people and further His purpose. The story of Noah and the Flood is the most obvious case of God arranging cataclysmic events in His dealings with humans; interestingly, other cultures attest there was a flood, too. The beginning of the Jewish nation vouches for God's genetic mastery: Abraham and Sarah were 100 and 90, too old to have children, but God allowed Sarah to conceive Isaac. Other Old Testament miracles occurred on a wide scale: the plagues in Egypt; crossing the Red Sea; the collapse of the walls of Jericho; the sun standing still; the shadow going backwards ten steps on the stairway (Josh.10:13; 2Kings 20:11). The ministries of the prophets Elijah and Elisha had many wonders involving the natural realm. At one point, when they're surrounded by an army, Elisha asks the Lord to open his servant's eyes, who then sees the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha (2Kings 6:17). Kind of like the curtain being pulled back to show a glimpse of another order, not normally visible to the human eye.

      So that's starting with the life of Jesus, going back through the Old Testament. Now go ahead to what the New Testament predicts in the end times and there's even more change in the natural order. When Christ comes, Paul tells us in 1Cor.15(23), "those who belong to Him" will be resurrected as He was. Believers then living will be "caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" (1Thess.4:17). As a song by the contemporary group Third Day puts it:

"Sky falls down, it tumbles into the sea / Sun goes out, He's coming back for me / I'll be found at the place where the gravity leaves the ground / I won't be coming down, down..."

      Finally, after judgment, a totally new order will be ushered in. Peter foretells the heavens will disappear, the elements be destroyed and melt in the heat; he says, "We are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth." (2Pet.3:10,12b,13) Revelation 21(1,4b) says, "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away...There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." If that's what we're looking forward to, what we're expecting at the end, as pictured in the resurrection of Christ the firstfruits, it's no longer surprising to think of God creating everything ready-made at the beginning. In fact, special creation is consistent with the Lord's pattern of operation all through Scripture.

      Now, this is all from the perspective of faith in Christ. This Biblical approach won't likely be convincing to a skeptic who's not a Christian. But I want you to see that, positing acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour -- having received as a "given" the reality of His life, death for us, and resurrection -- creation "makes sense" from the standpoint of belief; especially when considered in light of the Biblical account and the renewal at time's end.

Common Sense (& Honest Science) Criticize Evolutionary Theory

What are some reasons that are independent of faith -- more along the lines of common sense and simply good science? Well, a biggie is the second law of thermodynamics, or what I call the "aging lawn mower" or "messy desk" principle. The grass springing up lately has gotten us hauling out our lawn mowers after a long winter break. For those with older garden tractors like ours, that may mean repeated repairs as belts wear and pins break. Equipment takes maintenance, otherwise it breaks down. You need to keep putting energy into it to keep it running.

      Or take my desk. Left to itself, over time it develops a case of the "mounds": things get dumped on it in passing, waiting for the right time to be sorted and filed. Again, it takes an investment of energy to keep things orderly on the desktop.

      The second law of thermodynamics says the amount of free (read: unusable) energy in a system is always increasing. Entropy is always building, nothing's 100% efficient so there's always some "waste" energy given off. Thus systems tend to run down, they become disorganized not more complex and more orderly. Thus, contrary to evolution, a natural process on its own could not account for increasingly complex living organisms.

      Take the supposed primeval chemical "soup" which evolutionists suppose was the first matrix for living cells. You can pump energy (in place of sunlight) into it and form molecules, but this soon reaches a limit. Energy-rich molecules tend to break down. Dr Robert Kofahl writes in his book The Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter, "This limit is far short of the complexity of the simplest living organism." As well, mutations tend to be bad for organisms, not beneficial. So that's the "lawn-mower" principle: things tend to break down rather than get better and more orderly on their own. Paul talks in Rom.8(20-22) about the creation being "subjected to frustration", in "bondage to decay", "groaning as in the pains of childbirth" - probably partly due to this thermodynamic of breakdown.

      Another big problem confronting evolution is the genetic barriers between species which prevent cross-breeding or drastic changes. You can match a horse with a donkey and get a mule, but the mule is infertile - it won't continue its line. Horses can only beget fertile animals which are other horses. There's a sort of genetic "wall" that keeps a species a species. We read the phrase "according to its kind" in some form seven times in Genesis 1(11,12,21,24,25 -3x) -- God created the vegetation and living creatures according to their respective kinds, with no crossing over. Brian Goodwin is a well-known British biologist who's not a professing Christian but one of a growing number of biologists who are questioning Darwin's orthodoxy. He says, "Look at all the variety of dogs.But they're still dogs.You never go beyond canine characteristics."

      So we do not see intermediate forms, either now or in the fossil record of the past. The links are missing. It's not an evolutionary "tree", but more like clumps of twigs. Dr Kofahl writes, "The fossil record has many embarrassing gaps, even reversals...it does not provide intermediate forms between species...the supposedly oldest rocks containing appreciable numbers of fossils include many different kinds of structurally complex creatures" - not the few very simple kinds evolution would lead us to expect.

      If I were to ask for volunteers to become an intermediate form, you would be wise to all take one step back! Even if an organism did sprout an entirely new and weird appendage, it would be a detriment and liability to it long before it became an advantage in the reproductive scheme. Kofahl notes the problem of the requirement for the simple gelatinous amphibian egg, which is designed to develop in water, to be transformed by slow, minute changed into the complex amniotic egg of the reptiles, designed to incubate in air. Or there's the problem that reptile and mammal lungs contain trillions of tiny air sacs, as do mammal lungs; but bird lungs have tubes rather than sacs. He asks, "How could a creature with a lung made half of sacs and half of tubes survive?"

      Another conundrum for evolution is the "irreducible complexity" of some organs, such as the eye. These organs had to come into existence as an integrated unit all at once, not step by step or in stages. This made Darwin shudder. In his The Origin of Species he admitted: (now this is Darwin himself talking!) "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

      Or consider complex processes on the biochemical level, such as photosynthesis, the Krebs cycle, or the production of RNA from DNA or proteins from RNA with ribosomes zipping along building peptide chains. Such things don't just happen on a trial-and-error basis. It had to be right the first time, or not at all. They are irreducibly complex - by design.

      Statistically speaking, the probability of life forms evolving by themselves is infinitesimally small. As an example, Dr Kofahl writes: "assume that for a billion years the surface of the earth was covered each year with a fresh layer one foot deep of protein molecules. This would be 260 trillion tons each year, a fantastic number of molecules. Yet, at the end of the billion years, the probability that just one protein molecule required to start life had been formed is only one chance in about 100 billion. This means that it is really mathematically impossible for life to start by accident..."

      And life could not start with a single protein molecule. Professor Harold Morowitz estimated that the simplest possible living cell would require not just one, but at least 124 different proteins to carry out necessary life functions. He estimated the probability of its formation by chance to be about the same as the probability of tossing coin one billion times and getting all heads.

      In order to increase the odds, evolutionists project that the earth is extremely old. But this runs into other problems. If the earth were 4.5 billion years old, the deposits from crashing meteorites would mean there should be over 600 pounds of nickel on each square foot of the ocean floor, but it's just not there. Likewise, when the first lunar module landed on the moon in 1969, it was designed with long legs because the meteoritic dust on the moon's surface was expected to be many feet deep. But Neil Armstrong didn't have to make nearly that big a step!

By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them

The consequences of adopting a worldview are important to consider. Robert Morgan asks, "Does evolution 'work'? Does it result in psychological and sociological health and happiness? It is a well-known if seldom-mentioned fact of history that Darwin's survival-of-the-fittest and materialist evolutionary conjectures, seized upon by Karl Marx, provided the foundation for both Hitler's Holocaust and Stalin's genocide...What would you expect of a generation that had been taught evolution from their earliest school days? If Darwin is right, we are nothing but accidental by-products of evolutionary dust on an insignificant world lost somewhere in the vastness of a hostile universe and doomed to perish in a short period of time. We are nothing more than a match that blazes for a moment, then is extinguished forever. We are without any divine guidance, without any moral absolutes. We have no spirit and no soul, therefore we become obsessed with our bodies, obsessed with pleasure...What does such a belief do to optimism and hope? To moral values? To the sanctity of life? To human dignity? To the sacredness of home and family? To law and order?

      "Dostoyevski once remarked that if God is dead, then everything is justifiable; philosopher Ravi Zacharias put it like this, 'There is nothing in history to match the dire ends to which humanity can be led by following a political and social philosophy that consciously and absolutely excludes God.'

      "If, on the other hand, creation is true, then we are formed by a loving God in His own image, the crown of His creation and heirs of eternal life through His Son, Jesus Christ. We are people of dignity and worth, surrounded by a fantastic universe that he made for our enjoyment. We are guided by sound moral principles leading to human health and happiness, and we are comforted by all the promises in the book He has given. We have hope even during life's darkest hours, and we have value beyond that of any other living creatures.

      "Which option seems most sensible to you?" (Let's pray.)