APOLOGETICS PRESS

285 Pages·2004·0.93 MB·English

APOLOGETICS PRESS
Apologetics Press, Inc.

230 Landmark Drive

Montgomery, Alabama 36117-2752

First Edition © Copyright 1986

First Revised Edition © Copyright 1999

Second Revised Edition © Copyright 2002

Third Revised Edition © Copyright 2004

ISBN: 0-932859-63-1

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in

any form without permission from the publisher, except in

the case of brief quotations embodied in articles or critical re­

views.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER 2 Importance of the Creation/

Evolution Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Evolutionary Scientists as

“Reluctant Creationists”? . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

CHAPTER 3 Plausibility of the Creation Model . . . 19

Is the Universe Eternal? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Steady State and Oscil­

lating Universe Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

What About the Big Bang? . . . . . . . . . . 34

The Evolution of a Theory . . . . . . . . . 35

The Big Bang Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Scientific Reasons Why the Big

Bang Theory Cannot be Correct . . . . 48

Cosmic Microwave

Background Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

The Homogeneity of the Universe . . . 82

Dark Matter and Our “Precar­

iously Balanced” Universe . . . . . . . . . 85

Dark Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Did the Universe Create

Itself Out of Nothing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Was the Universe Created?. . . . . . . . . . 110

Our Fine-Tuned,

Tailor-Made Universe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

CHAPTER 4 The Law of Cause and Effect . . . . . . 131

Science and the Law

of Cause and Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

CHAPTER 5 The Law of Biogenesis . . . . . . . . . . . 139

CHAPTER 6 The Laws of Genetics . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

A Look at the Inner

Workings of the Cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

DNA, Genes, and Chromosomes . . . . . 164

Origin of the Genetic Code. . . . . . . . . . 170

-i­
Function and Design

of the Genetic Code. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

Implications of the

Human Genome Project . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

“Error Messages”—

SNPs and Mutations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

CHAPTER 7 The Laws of Probability . . . . . . . . . . 197

CHAPTER 8 The Fossil Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Predictions of the Two Models . . . . . . . 212

Human Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

CHAPTER 9 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

APPENDIX A Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

APPENDIX B Arp’s Anomalies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

-ii­
1

INTRODUCTION

There are two fundamentally different, and diametrically
opposed, explanations for the origin of the Universe, the ori­
gin of life in that Universe, and the origin of new types of vary­
ing life forms. Each of these explanations is a cosmogony—an
entire world view, or philosophy, of origins and destinies, of
life and meaning.
One of these world views is the concept of evolution.Ac-
cording to the theory of evolution, or as it may be called more
properly, the evolution model, the Universe is self-contained.
Everything in the Universe has come into being through mech­
anistic processes without any kind of supernatural interven­
tion. This view asserts that the origin and development of the
Universe and all of its systems (the Universe itself, living non­
human organisms, man, etc.) can be explained solely on the
basis of time, chance, and continuing natural processes innate
in the structure of matter and energy.
According to this particular theory, all living things have
arisen from a single-celled organism, which in turn had arisen
from an inanimate, inorganic world. This theory may be cal­
led the “General Theory of Evolution,” a name given to it by
G.A. Kerkut, the famous British evolutionist/physiologist who
described it as “...the theory that all the living forms in the world
have arisen from a single source which itself came from an in­
organic form” (1960, p. 157).
-1­
The second alternate and opposing world view is the con­
cept of creation. According to the theory of creation, or as it
may be called more properly, the creation model, the Uni­
verse is not self-contained. Everything in the Universe, and
in fact, the Universe itself, has come into being through the
design, purpose, and deliberate acts of a supernatural Creator
Who, using processes that are not continuing as natural pro­
cesses in the present, created the Universe, the Earth, and all
life on the Earth, including all basic types of plants and ani­
mals, as well as humans.
As various authors—both evolutionists (see Wald, 1979, p.
289)and creationists (see Wysong, 1976, p. 5)—have observed,
there are two and only two possibilities regarding origins. One
or the other of these two philosophies (or models) must be true.
That is to say, all things either can, or cannot, be explained in
terms of ongoing natural processes in a self-contained Uni­
verse. If they can, then evolution is true. If they cannot, then
they must be explained, at least in part, by extranatural pro­
cesses that can account for a Universe which itself was cre­
ated. In their text, What Is Creation Science?, Henry Morris and
Gary Parker commented on this point.
The fact is, however, there are only two possible mod­
els of origins, evolution or creation.... Either the space/
mass/time universe is eternal, or it is not. If it is, then
evolution is the true explanation of its various com­
ponents. If it is not, then it must have been created by
a Creator. These are the only two possibilities—sim-
ply stated, either it happened by accident (chance)...
or it didn’t (design).... There are only these two pos­
sibilities. There may be many evolution submodels...
and various creation submodels..., but there can be
only two basic models—evolution or creation (1987, p.
190, emp. in orig.).
Various terms have been used to describe the two concepts of
origins—creation versus evolution, design versus chance, the­
ism versus naturalism/materialism, etc.—but in the end all of
these phrases are merely different ways of expressing the same
two basic alternatives.
-2­
Some, in an attempt to offer a third alternative, have sug­
gested “theistic evolution” (also known as “directed evolution,”
“mitigated evolution,” or “religious evolution”), which postu­
lates both a Creator and an evolutionary scenario. Evolution­
ists frequently have been known to ask creationists, “Which
creation story do you wish to see taught—Buddhist? Hindu?
Christian?, etc.?” The fact remains, of course, that ultimately
either there is a Creator or there is not. That question will have
to be resolved, whether or not one wishes to retreat to a con­
cept like theistic evolution. An appeal to theistic evolution as
a possible “third alternative” in the origins controversy will
not answer the basic questions involved. Also, evolutionists
need to be reminded that the cosmogonies of the Buddhists,
Hindus, Taoists, Confucianists, etc. are all based on evolution.
Orthodox Jewish, Muslim, and Christian cosmogonies are all
based on creation. Anyone who takes the time and expends the
effort to study these issues likely will come to realize the illog­
ical, contradictory nature of theistic evolution and related con­
cepts (see Thompson, 1977, 1995, 2000). There may be many
evolutionary submodels (e.g., different mechanisms, rates, or
sequences) and various creationist submodels (e.g., different
dates, or events of creation), but there still remain only two
basic models—creation and evolution.
Both evolution and creation may be referred to correctly
as scientific models, since both may be used to explain and pre­
dict scientific facts. Obviously the one that does the better job
of explaining/predicting is the better scientific model. How­
ever, by the very nature of how science works, simply because
one model fits the facts better does not prove it true. Rather,
the model that better fits the available scientific data is said to
be the one that has the highest degree of probability of being
true. Knowledgeable scientists understand this, of course, and
readily accept it, recognizing the limitations of the scientific
method (due to its heavy dependence upon inductive, rather
than strictly deductive, reasoning).
In order to examine properly the two models, they must be
defined in broad, general terms, and then each must be com­
pared to the available data in order to examine its effective-
-3­
ness in explaining and predicting various scientific facts. What,
then, by way of summary, do the two different models predict
and/or include? The evolution model includes the evidence
from various fields of science for a gradual emergence of pres­
ent life kinds over eons of time, with emergence of complex
and diversified kinds of life from “simpler” kinds, and ultimately
from nonliving matter. The creation model includes the ev­
idence from various fields of science for a sudden creation of
complex and diversified kinds of life, with gaps persisting be­
tween different kinds, and with genetic variation occurring with­
in each kind. The creation model denies “vertical” evolution
(also called “macroevolution”—the emergence of complex from
simple, and change between kinds), but does not challenge
“horizontal” evolution (also called “microevolution”—the for­
mation of species or subspecies within created kinds, or ge­
netic variation). In defining the concepts of creation and evo­
lution, an examination of several different aspects of each of
the models demonstrates the dichotomy between the two. Put
into chart form, such a comparison would appear as seen in
Table 1 on the next page.
-4­
The creation model includes The evolution model includes
the scientific evidence and the scientific evidence and
the related inferences sug the related inferences sug
gesting that: gesting that:
I. The Universe and the solar I. The Universe and the solar
system were created sud system emerged bynatural
denly. istic processes.
II. Life was created suddenly. II. Life emerged from non-life
via naturalistic processes.
III. All present living kinds of III. Allpresent kinds emerged
animals and plants have re fromsimpler earlier kinds, so
mained fixed since creation, that single-celled organisms
other than extinctions, and ge evolved first into invertebrates,
netic variation in originally cre then vertebrates, then am
ated kinds has occurred only phibians, then reptiles, then
within narrow limits. mammals, then primates (in
cluding man).
IV. Mutation and natural se IV. Mutation and natural se
lection are insufficient to have lection have brought about the
brought about the emergence emergence of present com
of present living kinds from a plex kinds from a simple pri
simple primordial organism. mordial organism.
V. Man and apes haveasep V. Man and apes emerged
arate ancestry. from a common ancestor.
VI. The Earth’s geologic fea VI. The Earth’s geologic lec
tures appear to have been tures were fashioned largely
fashioned largely byrapid, cat by slow, gradual processes,
astrophic processes that af with infrequent catastrophic
fected the Earth on a global events restricted to alocal
and regional scale (catastro scale (uniformitarianism).
phism).
VII. The inception of both the VII. The inception of both the
Earth and living kinds may Earth and of lifemust haveoc
havebeen relatively recent. curred severalbillion years
ago.
Table 1— The two models of origins (after Gish, et al., 1981)
-5­