Not afraid to shy away from controversy, we thought we'd put a talk study thingy on around the topic of evolution. This is from a Christian perspective. Personally, I do not believe in evolution. It's a theory at best, unproven, with many scientists (including secular ones) not believing in its validity. This study presents a huge amount of evidence for God creating the world in the Genesis time scale - Biblically, scientifically and philosophically! So dip in and see what you can use as it's not completely 'young-people' friendly but may widen your knowledge and help with older students or University students.
However, we recognise that some Christians do believe in evolution and this is a personal choice - we'll all family either way! What's more important is the Creator and not necessarily the method of creation!
Evolution is a theory created by a man called Charles Darwin who was a famous scientist. However, it is still a theory. Even some evolutionists have said that this is a theory, others have said it's inaccurate, some scientists have defined evolution as really bad science. Others still have said it's completely inaccuarate (and these aren't Christians saying this). The famous picture of a monkey becoming a human has also long since been rejected as scientifically incorrect. What may worry you is that because some extreme atheist scientists believe there is no such things as morals (no God, no moral standards) they admit they are even prepared to lie about evolution, which some have.
The theory is that over time, things evolve into other things. So this means that things can improve - so for example animals who live in dry deserts have learned over time how to survive. This is within a species of animal. For example, humans are getting taller. This 'micro-evolution' is fine and well recognised.
The more controversial theory is that species can evolve into other species ('macro-evolution'). So the theory is that humans came from monkeys and before that from what's been called 'Primordial Slime' - so basically from mud. The problem for evolutionists is that the theory requires people to believe we came from this slime over millions of years and somehow developed into thinking humans with mind, body, soul and spirit. This 'coincidence' requires a number of links to be found proving that mankind gradually developed. The truth is that no such links have been found. They are the missing links.
This huge session will attempt to show physical and Biblical evidence against evolution and that believing the Bible is not for religious nuts, but for informed people who know the Bible and know that God (Yahweh) is the creator of this world and that he still holds the world and its people in his hand.
Beyond this, we find that terms are thrown around insultingly and abusively. Ever heard the dissing comment of 'flat earth society' when referring to Christian creationists. This absurd comment comes from the (incorrect) view that Christians believed the world was round and scientists came along and proved it wasn't. For starters, people forget that the development of geology in the West came through men who were Christians / believed in God (people conveniently fail to mention that). In fact, scientific success in the West was birthed out of a Christian foundation!
But getting back to the 'flat earth' idea, it's actually untrue. It was made up in a fictional story by the American author, Washington Irvin. In reality, the person arguing for the world being round was a Christian - Galileo. His colleague, Capernicus also believed in God. It was the Catholic power (which also persecuted and killed real Christians) that was stopping Galileo's science, along with anothert (secular) group called the Ptolemists. So the whole 'flat earth' concept is a lie, so don't stand for that one!
Also in Irvin's story, science was liberated from religion by the 'secular science' of Christopher Columbus. Not true! Columbus was a Christian (and also someone who fought against the Catholic authorities for the world being round, smashing the atheist argument about faith against science even further). Columbus believed he was led by the Holy Spirit and that God had a plan for him - "God made me the messenger of the new heaven and the new earth of which he spoke in the Apocalypse of St. John [Rev. 21:1] after having spoken of it through the mouth of Isaiah; and he showed me the spot where to find it." Columbus 1500. Columbus had a real and sincere faith.
Is all science simply about finding the truth?
Let's look briefly at science. Science does not produce any absolute truths in this area. There are many ways of dating the age of the earth. Many of these scientific estimates vary wildly (4000 to millions of years). There have been no 'half-ape-half-man' discoveries made, very few discoveries that point to anything that is an 'in-between' stage of evolutionary development between species. Very little evidence points to cross development between species. On the other hand, some science dates us all back to one person (the so called 'Eve' gene), other science dates everyone back to one place.
The other reality behind science is that it always comes from a perspective and is always clouded by a worldview. Atheists start with the 'faith' there is no God. So their science is clouded by this (mistaken) belief and clouds what they say.
The scientist James Hutton made an assumption that all science should be considered in the light of things we see today that we can define (and not things that may have happened that don't happen today). This abitrary rule also clouds science as it rules out the great flood etc (as we don't see that today).
Science is also highly political, with many people quite prideful, or having to do things their funding requires. Science, especially in the field of evolution is never impartial. Let's read what Stephen Jay Gould wrote, "Facts don't speak for themselves, they are read in the light of theory." The point is what world view you hold! For us it's a Biblical world view!
A great book to read is 'The Case for a Creator' by Lee Strobel. In this book, we find that science and the Bible and not incompatible. In fact, many scientists, physicists, micro-biologists and even astronomers, are now suggesting that the evidence points to the fact that there was a creator. In fact, some of the previous scientific 'evidence' (we still sometimes see in books), has been rejected - often by the original authors, or shown to have been made up.
Let's have a brief look at some of the evidence. Please read the book for more. This is a very loose summary only!
- The sun is 400 times bigger than the moon; the sun is 400 times further away from earth than the sun is. Therefore, it is possible to have a solar eclipse. It is now widely accepted that the earth is the only place in the known universe that a solar eclipse could be seen, the one place where mankind is..
- It is increasingly believed that earth is unique. Only in this part of the universe are all the elements so perfectly balanced so as to sustain the earth and human life. While some believe there many be an infinite number of universes, others would reply that this fact shows even more clearly that there is a creator.
- We all have bacteria in our bodies. These bacteria are powered around the body by little motors on their backs. These motors are called flagellums. These motors are so incredibly efficient, they are more efficient and relatively powerful than the most powerful motors we have, spinning at 10,000rpm (revolutions per minute), despite the fact these are microscopic organisms. Moreover, these flagellums can stop and change direction with almost one immediate turn.
- The cosmological constant. This is (according to answers.com): an arbitrary constant in the equations of general relativity theory. Forget what it is. Know that this figure needs to be very precise. If it was greater or lower than it is, the universe would be in a big mess. In fact, this is such a small number to aim at, that the likelihood of this being a chance number is something like 1 to the power of a million, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!
- The concept of the universe simply happening is doubted by many. In fact, even if the universe did suddenly come together, there must have been an initiating factor, something that made it happen. This points to a creator. To paraphrase one scientist: something only exists if something makes it exist - if it exists, it must have had something happen to make it exist - so there must be a creator.
- There is six-feet of DNA coiled up inside our body's 100 trillion cells, containing a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made. Every time we find DNA, it is sequential, complex and relates to an independent pattern - and thus needs an intelligent designer. What we find with DNA is that is has all this and no other explanation, other than a highly intelligent and creative creator, can explain it.
- Consciousness. We have a consciousness that is beyond our brain - this manifests as emotions, soul, desires, choices etc. It has been shown that a consciousness exists long after a brain has stopped functioning. This is separate to the brain. If the universe came together from an unconscious, nothing-ness, how do you explain consciousness? You can't, unless you recognise there was a Creator, God.
There are a number of serious questions about evolution, the big bang that need to be looked at very closely. Thanks to Chuck Missler and Koinonia House. for raising these issues. For more, I strongly recommend you visit khouse.org or order the Genesis Commentary DVDs.
1. The earth is not as old as some people claim. One claim is that the speed of light has been shown to be slowing down (Barry Setterfield's research). Without getting into the physics, this means that the earth appears to be much older than it actually is. The guess is that the earth is under 10,000 years old.
3. The universe has been shown to be truly digital when broken down into its smallest elements. A digital universe, digital systems that underpin the universe show lack of 'randomness' and points instead to order.
4. The question is raised about people worrying in regard to species and animals becoming extinct. If evolution is true, why are we worrying about extinction?! In fact, there is an inter-dependent relationship between plants and animals that proves there is order in the universe.
5. The mathematical likelihood (probability) of the big bang 'randomly' creating the universe is so high that the probability factor is way beyond the point at which science describes it as being 'absurd'.
6. The 'big bang' theory has had lots of ever-changing models. The latest model demands the need for a type of energy that has never been seen or evidenced. As Chuck Missler amusingly summarises, "First there was nothing - and then it exploded."
7. Some of the claims of evolution and evolutionists over time have simply been made up ('missing links' faked). Some text books still carry disproven 'evidences' of evolution!
8. Bombardier beetles provide an interesting case study. When attacked, they create a chemical reaction to set off multiple 'explosions' to attack their predator. Even the smallest error in this chemical mix would blow up the beetle. If evolution is true, how did the beetle 'evolve' to get the right mix? If beetles kept blowing up as they evolved to get the right 'chemical mix', they wouldn't be able to pass on the information via DNA... Think about it!
9. Compelling evidence has been gathered that the universe is finite (and not expanding). An expanding universe is a key facet of the argument for the big bang.
10. The complexity of DNA is completely staggering. If all the chemical 'letters' in the human body were printed in books, it would fill the Grand Canyon fifty times. This is before we begin to look at what DNA and cell replication in the body actually does (it's like a nano-manufacturing company that goes way beyond what any human company could ever do).
11. The law of entropy. Entropy means decay. The example given is the desk of the average person. It is tidied up, but gradually it becomes disordered and messy unless someone intervenes. People age, flowers grow and die, stars burn themselves out in the heavens. All this points to decay. If something decays, it follows that it must first have been unified and ordered. In order to have order, there is a need for an outside influence.
12. It has been found that the universe does not have a uniform temperature. In an indefinitely old universe (one 'millions' of years old), the expectation would be that the temperature would be constant, having had time to have a uniform temperature as things would over time. But the fact that temperature is not uniform points to a younger earth.
13. Chuck Missler has famously written and said that, "The Darwinians cannot explain the origin of life because they cannot account for the origin of information." Evolution cannot explain the origin of the 'information' needed to create life. We know that origin is God.
Interestingly, in 2009 (as khouse.org reported), "Physicist Bernard d'Espagnat won the Templeton Prize for his concept of a "veiled reality" - one that lies behind the world that we can touch and see. His work in quantum mechanics involves experiments that demonstrate that the essence of reality goes beyond merely the three dimensions that we can directly experience." The winner effectively pointed to the hand of a creator in his research.
Geology doesn't always point to a world created over many millions of years, despite what you may read! There is serious evidence that points to a creator and a 6 day time frame. The founder of modern-day geology was actually a Christian, as were many of his peers - faith inspiring science, not faith against science!
The truth has been revealed in recent years and science is now moving towards a common recognition that big 'catastrophic' events happen and can cause things to happen in a very short space of time that may otherwise have appeared to occur over millions of years. There are a number of examples where layers in rock strata (layers of rock) have been proved to have happened in very short spaces of time. There is one canyon (Burlingame Canyon, nr Washington) which looks like a 'million-years-old' kind of place, but the rock layers were revealed and a mini Grand Canyon formed after a 6 day flood! Another example of this sudden canyon creation was experienced in Toutle River after the Mt Helens volcanic explosion, and another example at Providence Canyon.
Radioactive dating is another problem for evolution. Estimates through technical science of the radioactive dating 'ages' of rocks have been created by science. Radioactive dating is like the sand in an hour-glass. Just as we can see time passing through the sand dropping into the lower half of the 'hour-glass' so radocative dating is based on the 'stablising' of radioactive atoms over time. However, there are many questions about the constancy of radioactive decay, leaving serious doubts to the accuracy of this kind of dating. One study showed of a crystal from New Mexico was dated by uranium dating at 1.5 billion years. Yet the decay creates helium. When this helium was dated it gave a date of only 6000 years. Studies like this question the 'constancy' of decay.
There are also wild differences between the numbers given by different 'radioactive isotopes'. For example near the Grand Canyon, "Canyon's layers were deposited. These basalts yield ages of up to 1 million years based on the amounts of potassium and argon isotopes in the rocks. But when we date the rocks using the rubidium and strontium isotopes, we get an age of 1.143 billion years." (Reference) This huge disparity calls into question any accuracy of this method.
However, what happens if we apply radioactive dating to modern-day and proven 'aged' geology and rock. Modern-day eruptions near the Grand Canyon were dated by radioactive dating to 500,000 - 1 million years old. Yet they happened in the memory of Native Americans according to geologists. Another eruption at Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand led to test results of things of more than 0.27 to 3.5 million years. Yet the eruption was observed and occurred over 25-50 years!
We believe as Christians this isn't true. Not only has the Bible predicted accurately over 400 events in history, many scientific finds back up the Bible. It isn't science that people believe has discredited the Bible, it is scientific theories. There is a big difference. A theory, like the evolution theory, is a proposal that has not been fully proved. True science is based on fact, not theory.
We see that Jesus himself knew the Old Testament brilliantly, often quoting it. It is real clear that Jesus accorded the Old Testament absolute authority, using it, repeating it, never querying it, and even pointing to prophecies fulfilled or to be fulfilled from it.
So Jesus gives authority to the New Testament by telling his disciples that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of all truth and that he will guide the disciples (and us today) into all truth, speaking only what he hears (from God the Father), who alone is perfect.
As a Christian, if we challenge the truth of the Bible, we challenge the fundamentals of our faith. It's no accident that people who spend time doing this often lose their faith or the heart for their faith. It's chasing useless knowledge and it's pointless. Believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, the life. believe what Jesus says and accept the authority of the Bible equally - Jesus the living Word, the Bible the written Word. (1 John).
If evolution is correct, it means that over millions of years (around 4.6 billion actually), species have developed into other species.
1. God said let the land produce living creatures who will multiply according to their KIND.
2. God made the creatures and saw that they were GOOD.
3. Man was made in the likeness of God.
4. Man was made to rule over and look after animals and creation.
We'll come back to some of these points later looking at The Bible and evolution..
So, if we did believe that evolution between species possible, we would also need to believe that the world has developed over millions of years.
In Genesis, we find the Bible tells us that God made the earth in 6 days and on the 7th day, God rested. Many Christians believe that this is a literal translation - 6 days means 6 days. Why would it mean anything else?
Well, for some, the confusion arises around the Hebrew word that is used for the word translated into English as 'day'. The Hebrew word is 'Yom' and this word can also mean 'period of time'. So, for some Christians, they believe that God created the world in 6 periods of 'time'.
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
In this, we see that the Bible uses the word 'Yom' in context to a period of day and night (after the first 'day'). So it is reasonable to assume that when the same word is used in the same chapter of the Bible, that the word 'Yom' continues to mean a day in earthly terms? I think so.
Additionally, the Bible continually speaks throughout Genesis 1 of the creation of the world and then ends with the number of the day that it was. So in Genesis 1.5 above, it says "...the first day." The word translated as 'first' is the word 'echod / echad' in the Hebrew. This is a primary number and means "first, alone, apiece, one etc." So it could be argued that as the Hebrew has quite a strong emphasis, it points more to a specific physical day.
This reading from Exodus 20.11 makes it very clear that God is talking about a day, as we know it.
I'm not sure what the problem is with God being able to create the world in his time and way as the Bible records. I realise others disagree but this is my strong conviction. Are we on dangerous territory when we start to almost re-interpret the Bible in line with modern thinking? Surely modern thinking should be subject to the Word of God as the final authority.
And if we accept 6 days was a guideline, an easy way for us humans to accept God's creation of the world, at what point does Genesis become literal and figurative. if we do not accept 6 literal days, do we accept Adam and Eve were literal, or the devil, or the garden of creation. How do we take a paragraph of Genesis and state that part of the paragraph is literal and half is representative? No, we start to land on tricky ground and ground that can undermine the Bible and faith. Not that we don't consider and think about these things - it's that we must accord the Bible the highest authority.
And if we accept 6 days was a guideline, an easy way for us humans to accept God's creation of the world, at what point does Genesis become literal and figurative. I mean, if we do not accept 6 literal days, do we accept Adam and Eve were literal, or the devil, or the garden of creation. How do we take a paragraph of Genesis and state that part of the paragraph is literal and half is representative? No, we start to land on tricky ground and ground that can undermine the Bible and faith. Not that we don't consider and think about these things - it's that we must accord the Bible the highest authority.
What does the Bible say? Well, the Bible isn't completely clear on this topic as the Bible tells us there are far more important things to worry about like caring for and loving other people. Many people believe that the Bible has been discredited and doesn't agree with science.
So let's look at evolution and the Bible and ask what does all our study of the Bible and creation mean anyway? Why bother with the questions and the theology?
1. We see that God made animals within their kind, to breed within their kind, only. We also find the order of God's creation contradict the view of evolution too. (Genesis 1).
2. God directly made man. Period. No evolution or development. What's more, man could communicate with God, he was given instruction by God to name all the plants and animals etc. Not exactly a work in progress!
God saw that man (and woman) were good. So was his creation. Can you imagine God creating perfection, declaring it to be 'good' and then waiting for it to 'mature' or 'evolve.' Nor can I. If we think of the clearest Biblical picture of our eternal future in heaven with God to be Eden then we realise that it was perfection.
Even if we accept man evolved, how do we explain Eve? Here was a woman created out of the body part of a man. No evolution, no development, Adam wasn't asleep for a few million years. No, we cannot accept the Biblical argument as being compatible with evolution at all.
3. Man was made in the likeness of God (as the trinity). This means man wasn't made as a primordial sludge or monkey. Otherwise it means that God would be primordial sludge or a monkey. Yet God created an awesome world and universe, created all the infinite-ness of humans, animals and planets. And we know that God is to be feared, revered and is all-powerful, the unquestioned authority! And who is our model of perfect humanity? Jesus, the man. Fully man yet fully God.
4. Man was made to rule over and look after animals and creation. As said above, man was made to be in charge of animals. No doubt who was the most advanced, unique and unparalleled creation by God. Only man can talk to God, be in direct relationship with God - man (and woman) was set apart from day one. There is no equal and man is no animal.
What else would believing in evolution as a Christian mean?
As a Christian, believing in evolution naturally leaves you with many doubts about your faith..
If we evolve from sludge, there is no need for a creator. Evolution believes in survival of the fittest, leaving the poor, the weak to die off. It is aggressive, domineering and conquering. Evolution supposes that there is no God, so man becomes god in effect. Man as god breaks God's law, God's rules and we see the consequences of this around us each day. Evolution leaves no hope, no after life, no heaven. Evolution leaves man as one of the animals, not distinct from other animals. The concept of God breathing life into mankind found clearly and specifically in Genesis is no more. This cannot be true.
Evolution also necessitates doubting the Bible. If Genesis is untrue, what else in the Bible is untrue? (See the next section below for more on this). On top of this, fossils or human remains have been found across the globe who died of disease, pain and suffering - with these bodies allegedly 'millions of years old'. Yet the Bible makes it clear that disease entered the world through sin. If there was suffering 'before' the fall of man, it undermines the Cross, what Jesus did and the concept of original sin. On top of this, passages in the Bible like Romans 8 and Acts 3.21 promise restoration ("Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.") If there was no real Adam & Eve and garden, what is God restoring things to? Nothingness or sludge?! No, God is restoring the original unbroken relationship between God and mankind! Finally, if man has always been diseased and dying, what kind of God would God be and how do we give an answer to those asking about suffering? If we're a Christian who believes in evolution, then we can only answer that's the way things are. Only if we believe in a literal 6 days can we reply that suffering came into the world through sin.
Jesus died for man - if evolution exists, which version of 'man'?
One of the things we know from the Bible is that Jesus made a perfect sacrifice on the Cross for all mankind. In the Old Testament, the priests had to make constant sacrifices so that people were made right with God. But Jesus made one sacrifice and this was perfect.
Hebrews 10:1 - "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship."
Hebrews 10:14 - "because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy."
We know that Jesus was fully man and yet fully God. John 1.1 says, "In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1.14 then tells us, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."
Therefore, Jesus made one sacrifice for man. As part of this, he was a man. If man has 'evolved', which 'man' did Jesus die for? Scientists call man, 'homo sapien' (the origins of homo sapien have yet to be resolved, according to scientists). If we are 'homo sapien', which according to science is just the latest incarnation of mankind, then surely Jesus would have had to come to earth as a previous species of mankind, in order to fulfil a sacrifice for that 'species'. If we believe that humankind is evolving, then there will surely come a day of the extinction of 'homo sapien' to be replaced by a new 'species.' Will Jesus have to return to die for this new species? NO! Of course not!
Instead, we believe that there has only ever been one 'man', that Jesus was a man (and yet God at the same time), and that this sacrifice was one time for all of mankind. The logical conclusion of this is that there has only ever been 'one species' of man.
Jesus affirms that man and woman (Adam and Eve) were made 'in the beginning'. If we took an evolutionary time line, we'd find man and woman created at the end of the timeline (of many millions of years). To be a Christian evolutionist, you would have to undermine and doubt the words of Jesus. He also confirmed that man and woman were 'one flesh' - not 'one sludge' ! The humanity of mankind is also confirmed here by Jesus.
1 Corinthians 15.45 also says this: So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
We know that Jesus was a real human being (history and reams of evidence proves this). In the Bible, Jesus is here likened to Adam. Jesus was real and therefore the Bible affirms that Adam was also a real human being.
What of them? In the last year there have been around 500 extinctions of animal, insect, bird. The dinosaurs were simply one of the creations of God (if they were in fact as we think they were). As you may well read, one of the dinosaurs people thought definitely existed was the brontosaurus. It has now been definitively proved this dinosaur didn't exist at all.
There is a fairly major Biblical event found in Genesis. You may have heard of it - it's called the Great Flood and it's found in and around Genesis 7. This devastation that man brought upon himself would have been sure to have destroyed many animals and everything else, producing the right conditions for fossilization.
Did dinosaurs exist? Yes, of course and the Bible even confirms this. Job 40 and Psalm 104 both mention giant creatures of the deep. These were called 'behemoth' meaning something enormous in size or power, or a huge animal.
But surely Noah took two of every living creature onto the Ark? So how did the dinosaurs die out? Good point. Whatever the truth, we find that the stories of the behemoth died out. (Could the Loch Ness Monster theories be a legacy of the behemoth the Bible speaks of?!) One thing we do know is that due to human impact on land, many species of creatures have already become extinct. With a threat like a dinosaur, there's a high likelihood they would have been killed by man.
Some also say that Noah could not have fitted all these dinosaurs on the ark, but a study grouping dinosaurs has found there were basically only 6-8 species. And besides, has anyone heard of baby animals? Noah and team could easily have put these on board, anywhere up to the age of 5 as studies have shown that dinosaurs hardly grew until age 5 and then grew very rapidly to full size.
But did man and dinosaur co-exist? Well, there's evidence for this in cave drawings of dinosaurs, an aboriginal drawing of aborigines surrounding a dinosaur. Science has also found a fossilised dinosaur with skin, a dinosaur through rock strata (that evolutionists say was formed over millions of years!) a dinosaur found with still existent red blood cells and another with living protein cells. Both red blood cells and protein cannot live for millions of years.
So don't let people treat you as an idiot for believing the Bible. Over time, science and archaeology have increasingly proved the Bible is true! Read the world from the Bible - it is true and trustworthy, as is its ultimate writer - God.