Websites
| |
|
|
Evolution: blind faith and bogus science
Ever have trouble getting to grips with the 'Evolution versus Creation' debate?. Philip Wren says, don't leave it to the scientists - and don't leave evolution's lies to your children.
by Philip Wren
Fossil evidence testifies to creation not evolution 
WE have recently come to the end of the first wave of programmes in which the BBC has been celebrating Charles Darwin. I only watched a couple of the programmes on offer and therefore know very little more about Darwin than I did before. Like most people I have never read his works. His writing is tedious and does not encourage perseverance except by the dedicated reader.
At school I was taught that evolution was proved. Not questioning what I was taught, I had to find a way of reconciling science and faith. I think that I held some foggy idea that if evolution was true the Bible could be rescued by a belief that man was a special creation. My personal turning point came with reading, Evolution and the Authority of the Bible, by Nigel M de S Cameron. Below is a quote from the first chapter in which Cameron spells out the pivotal importance of evolution to modern secular society:
For whether or not Darwinian (or neo- Darwinian) evolution actually happened, it must be admitted on all hands that without the theory or some equivalent the modern secular world would be quite unable to give an account of its self. Its whole self-understanding rests on the idea that there are natural processes that will account for all present phenomena. The atheist and agnostic recognise well enough that the theory of evolution must be true, and in consequence - as some eminent men have actually said - whatever the difficulties in believing the theory (and it has faced and does face strong challenges for instance of a mathematical nature, which evolutionists acknowledge) they are incomparably less than the difficulties involved in rejecting the theory, since that would imply special creation; and special creation would imply God.
The 'challenges... of a mathematical nature' mentioned in the quote probably refers to the work of Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe who had, in the same year (1983), published a book demonstrating that the mathematical probability of evolution by chance was so small that it could be safely considered impossible. Sometimes evolution is accused of being a religion. This brings scorn from the secularist for by definition a religion has to have a God. Although not a religion, evolution is a belief system which underpins a form of faith. We have to understand the pivotal nature of evolution in modern thought. It is not a subject which can be debated. For the secular humanist world to exist evolution must be true. To question evolution is to attack the foundations of modern society.
Foggy thinking
The above are strong words about evolution. Cameron reserved even stronger words for foggy Christian thinking, which sought compromise between science and faith:
In this chapter and the following we hope to point out why any serious reading of the early narratives of Genesis will find them in conflict with the thinking of modern science, such that harmony with the evolutionary idea is not available except by the abandonment of Genesis. Another way of putting this is to say that the doctrine that scripture teaches, the essential structure of Christian truth, is at heart irreconcilable with evolution. Hanging in the balance is the fate of orthodox Christianity. The implications of evolution for Christian theology, which evangelical thinkers have scarcely begun to face, are devastating.
With a challenge to the logical inconsistency of my faith, where was I to go? Fortunately I had started to discover those writers who were to rescue me. Authors who took the available scientific evidence and reinterpreted it.
A sleight of hand
45 years ago the case for evolution was presented as being irrefutable. Accepting what I was taught, I failed to recognise the sleightof- hand by which this case was made. It lies in the definition of evolution . of which there are many. Just two definitions will serve here: 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution'. Micro-evolution is not disputed by anyone. It is universally accepted that species have the ability to adapt to changing environments. This can be observed and verified. The genetic make-up of all living creatures contains the information to allow considerable changes. The sleight-of-hand occurs when the proven is then applied to the unproven macro-evolution . the postulated transformation from one kind into another. This has never been observed and no mechanism to allow it to take place exists.
Science has moved on
In the last five decades science has moved on. At school I was taught that life probably originated in some sort of chemical soup which was zapped by a huge electrical discharge to form proteins and then cells. I apologise, as today this seems to come out of the 'little green men in flying saucers' branch of science, but it was what we were taught and accepted. We now know that even the simplest single cell living organism is incredibly complex. It contains vast amounts of information to enable it to function and reproduce. The first problem the modern evolutionist has to tackle is how the simplest living cell came into existence. No one has come up with a plausible explanation.
Going back to the point made in the preceding paragraph, there is no known mechanism by which genetic information can be improved and no known example of it ever happening. Improvement is obviously essential if a single cell is to evolve into a more advanced creature. The opposite is known to be true. There are mechanisms which counter and correct any changes. Some look to adaptation and mutation of species as the process by which improvement takes place, but these both result in a reduction in genetic information.
Two essentials for the acceptance of evolution – the origin of life and the advancement of creatures – have no plausible explanation. But it goes much further. I was told at school that in some way, which I now see was never explained, fossils had 'something to do' with the proof of evolution. My gratitude is to those who have shown me that fossils testify to creation. Darwin believed that if his ideas were true the evidence would be found in the fossils. In fact by now the museums of the world should be stacked with millions of examples of missing links to prove the evolutionary tree. What a surprise, there are only a handful of dubious examples and all of those are contested by scientists.
Then there are questions over symbiotic relationships where one creature is supposed to have evolved in parallel with another. To follow Fred Hoyle's statistical methods, the probability of it happening is so infinitely small that we can take it as impossible. We may ask 'what about the fact that life needs life to support life?' How did the simplest cells bridge the gap of the lack of other life to create an environment in which to develop? There is also the problem of apparent design. The secular evolutionist is forced to rely on blind faith that it must be the product of evolution. The one thing we can say with certainty about macro-evolution is that it never happened because it could never happen. If you wish to look into these ideas in more depth there are many very good sources of information for example, the Creation Resources Trust P. O. Box 3237, Yeovil BA22 7WD. www. crt. org. uk. They send out a regular newsletter and also arrange meetings. Also recommended are Answers in Genesis and Creation Research.
Why does this matter?
It matters...
• for our children. As Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis has pointed out, children from Christian homes will be taught Bible stories in Sunday School. At school they will be taught that science has proved those stories to be myth and fable. It is not surprising that 70 to 80 percent of children from Christian families abandon church in their teens.
• because of the consequent loss of authority credited to the Bible and the Church. If parts of the Bible are myth, what parts can be trusted?
• because evangelism is an uphill struggle against a secular worldview that has been allowed to portray faith as irrational.
• because evolution is the foundation of modern secular society. We deplore the breakdown of our society that has resulted from secular humanism. Instead of fighting a rearguard action to preserve a few remaining Christian values we need to attack the foundation. If the foundations are weakened the structure will crumble.
• because many Christians are conned into thinking that they must compromise. They seek a middle way which holds together a belief in God and evolution. They claim to avoid the extremes of both the militant atheist and Christian fundamentalist. But there is no middle way. The two worldviews are irreconcilable. The Biblical account hinges on the truth of Genesis. It states that sin and death entered this world when Adam fell. Evolution teaches that violence and death were in the world long before man existed. If God created through evolution then He is barbaric. If that were the God we were asked to trust, I would throw in my lot with the atheists.
Time to stand
In my experience those Christians who dismiss creationism have never examined the case for creation. Creation makes the best sense of the available scientific evidence. Christianity is a rational evidence-based faith that makes perfect sense of the world as we experience it. In contrast secular atheism is irrational, without supporting evidence . and founded on blind faith in what can never be proved. It is a strong delusion. Evolution is not a fringe issue to be left to the few who are motivated enough to challenge its false premises. Evolution needs to be tackled if the church is to regain credibility. Are you angry that you were blinded for so long and that so many are being misled by bogus science? It is time for the church to be much bolder in standing for the truth of creation. You can do that by supporting those who are already making a stand for truth.
Adapted from an article in Sword magazine (Sept/Oct 2009) and published with permission
----------
Ed foonote: Check out Creation Resources Trust and Answers in Genesis
Creation is a cinema production which details Darwin's "struggle between faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-year-old daughter, Annie.
US distributors have shunned the film as being hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.
|
Philip Wren, 17/12/2009 |
|
| | W Benn (Guest) | 02/02/2010 20:38 | | For nobel read noble. It is beginning to have the appearance of an old fashioned football announcer over the tannoy - notifying team changes to the football programme.
No doubt there has been too much straying from the site's main topic and I put my hand up regarding that.I feel a comment from the editor is overdue!
Good night.I am sure that we are all well meaning worthy people on this site and that sometimes we have to disagree. As I say, good night.
|  | Andrea (Guest) | 02/02/2010 21:32 | | There's a little prayer you could say before you fall asleep -
This night as I lay down to sleep
I pray the Lord my soul should keep
And if I die before I wake
I pray the Lord my soul will take
Sweet dreams! :-)
| | | Paul Whitworth (Guest) | 02/02/2010 21:36 | | You don't misunderstand me, I am a slave to righteousness, purchased by the blood of Christ. I am nothing, and my own words are of no use to anyone. I am not, as you point out worthy of the label 'nobal human' but don't pity me, I have all I ever could want and more!
| | | (Guest) | 03/02/2010 04:30 | | Hi Andrea you wrote "The Bible doesn't say that God created the actual planet at the time of creation, only that it was 'void and without form'"
"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it."
To me the above passage would suggest that the earth was indeed created during creation week even if it was without form. Also if one accepts the idea that there was billions of years before the formation of our planet then there is a conflict with the Genesis account. The old earth model places cosmic evolution (unobserved) and the development of stars before the earth. But the Bible however clearly states that God created the earth first and the sun and stars on day 4! Some might argue that the sun must have been created before the earth because God said on day one “let there be light” but as we know from the book of revelation our God doesn’t need the sun to create light. He is light “There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign forever and ever”
Alec wrote "Radiometric dating shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the earth is very very old. Radiometric dating essentially kills the case for YEC"
We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.
A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years. These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified.
Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old. Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.
Many Geologists and palaeontologists swear by radiometric dating methods but anyone who claims that radiometric dating disproves a YEC is either naive, mis-informed, or has never taken the time to consider the problems associated with radiometric dating methods including major assumptions they make about the past. Eg. Assuming the decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.
There are many highly reliable dating methods including radioactive decay that prove a young earth.
If the earth is billions of years old then Christians will need to consider some theological implications. Eg. When quizzed about marriage Jesus said “in the beginning God made them male and female.” This was a reference to the creation week as the beginning and reflects the opening words of Genesis “In the beginning”. If however there were billions of years before creation week then day six wasn’t the beginning and Jesus got His history wrong. To me His answer only makes sense if creation week which includes day six really was the beginning. Also the Scripture doesn’t allow for billions of years between days one and two as the Hebrew word “Yom” (Day) is qualified with both a portion and number. Meaning it is a literal day and not a period of time. “And there was evening and morning the first day” these grammatical rules which define yom as a literal day and not a period of time are repeated for each day except the seventh.
The fossil record as interpreted by some old earth creationists, intelligent design folk or evolutionists show that there was already thorns thistles, death, suffering, disease and decay in the world millions of years before humans, which would contradict the apostle Pauls teaching that death entered the world through one man’s sin and the genesis account that thorns and thistles came as a result of Gods curse on the earth after Adams sin and not before.
The Bible claims that the wolf will lie down with the lamb which would suggest to me that this was the way it was in the beginning. Genesis (Paradise lost,) revelation( Paradise gained. ) Death is an enemy, an intrusion in God’s creation, and the last enemy to be destroyed according to revelation.
"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it” That’s why we have a seven day week!
Not
14.5 billions years ago God was forming the earth. However it only took six days to created the rest of universe. And He rested on the seventh day.
I know many Christians will strongly disagree on
the age of the earth and when we get to heaven it won’t matter who was right, One thing we all agree on however is that God created and he deserves the Glory for his creation.
Come Lord Jesus.
| | | John Wilson (Guest) | 03/02/2010 04:45 | | I just realised I posted without a name and was in response to page 2 not realising the forrum had 4 pages
| | | Peter Carr | 03/02/2010 08:44 | | W Benn, I believe that I answered your question. You however seem obsessed by these animals that have, or do know terror. Terror inflicted by whom?
Needless pain and terror are not acceptable whether on humans or animals, but who is doing the inflicting? I suspect that you will find that it is largely us. Yes, there is a food chain, do you have an alternative system in mind?
You said, "Incidentally humans have just arrived so you cannot consider the appointment of humanity, to look after them as part of God'd creation, as particularly efficient."
Hence, the valid biblical explanation as to why it has all gone wrong. And how only God can one day restore order, in the meantime we (humans) have to live with the mess that we have made. The sad reality is that God has created all that is good, we in our wholesale sin and rebellion have been hitting the self destruct button since Genesis Ch 3.
Sorry, if you don't like my perspective, but maybe its really God's perspective that you are objecting to!
| | | Alec (Guest) | 03/02/2010 10:08 | | Re: RATE and the accuracy of radiometric dating.
The RATE project is a YEC attempt to discredit radiometric dating for the simple reason that it completely destroys the case for YEC.
K/Ar dating is not suitable for younger igneus rocks. Geolgists know this. It is one of the limitations of the system. Likewise Carbon dating is only suitable for relatively recent material
You cannot reliably use K/Ar dating for putting an age on recent lava flows! It would be like trying to use a teacher's meter stick to determine the thickness of a human hair
Silmilarly U/Pb dating is used for much older rocks, which is why we can tell the antiquity of the earth. Zircons from Western Australia have been dated to over 4 billion years old (which by the way, is also in accordance with the oldest meteorites found in the solar system)
Each method has its limits. Geologists use the correct tool for the job
RATE is a desperate attempt to discredit established methods of age measurement. It is not predicated on genuine scientific research or concern with the reliabilty of methods.
It is predicated on dogma, which in turn is derived from ONE possible interpretation of scripture
One of the people heavily involved in this sort of stuff is Andrew Snelling. Snelling is a geologist who has done consultancy work for mining companies in Australia. He has papers published in reputable journals which relate to uranium deposits.
In those papers he refes to the antiquity of the earth using accepted figures for the dates. ie extremely old!
However, the same person writes for AIG and other YEC organisations stating unequivocally that he believes the earth is young!
It beggars belief. He acts like a geological Janus.
Dont be fooled by these people. They, as I quoted once before make Christianity look like "anti-intellectual obscurantism" . Those are the words of a Christian geologist, Davis Young who is influential in the "Affiliation of Christian Geologists" - and OEC (not YEC) organisation
There is one other point that needs to be made. Scientists are constantly striving to improve accuracy in their methods, to refine their techniques so that the error bars on graphs and charts can be attenuated. If there were genuinely serious problems with K/Ar dating (as well as other radiometric dating methods) then these would be documented. Working out the sequence and ages of an igneous province requires accuracy, both in the field and in the lab. If readings were all over the place, the work would be worthless. As long as care is taken and samples properly processed, there are no inconsistencies.
Radiometric dating is crucial to our understanding of volcanic and magmatic processes. The more we know about the internal workings and processes of the earth, then we might be able to deal better with natural disasters. Who knows, we might be able to predict earthquakes with some degree of accuracy.
YEC contributes zilch to this sort of study. Just like it contributes zilch to the search for ores, minerals , oil or whatever.Exploration for natural resources is based on real geology with real (old earth) dates.
Thats reality.
| | | Andrea (Guest) | 03/02/2010 12:45 | | John(?),
Thanks for the informed explanations. I personally do believe the Bible's account of creation and that the earth is young, however, it wouldn't cause me any problem if it was in fact much older , albeit in an unformed state. It really doesn't matter to me. I believe the Bible is true from cover to cover and matters such as the exact age of the earth are not important to me. They are what they are and will without doubt concur with what we have been told in the Bible, regardless of how much of it we were able to properly understand.
Neither do I have any confidence in man's ability to accurately determine the age of the earth. Who or what is there from that time to correct them if they are wildly inaccurate? No matter how clever we think we are, we just cannot make definite predictions about things which apparently took place such a long time ago and for which there are no records from that time. Contrast that with the Bible though and, despite all the written and historical/archeological evidence still around, people still won't believe.
I guess people will always look for another explanation for our origins because believing the bible's account of it then leaves us with a dilemma - believe it and you then have to address where it leaves you with God. That's the bit folk don't like - the need to be accountable to their creator. Ignoring it or disbelieving it though won't make any difference - if God is there, then we will be accountable to him whether we believed in Him or not.
When you consider all the different beliefs there are in the world, that leaves the vast majority believing the wrong thing, albeit on occasions very sincerely.
This leaves us with a crucial question - which side are we on? I'm confident that I am in the minority who is now acceptable to God - not because of anything I have done but simply because I have recognised my need to be reconciled to Him and have accepted the gift of salvation. It seems such a shame that so many stumble on this requirement which, in effect, is not a liability but frees you from fear and gives a whole new reason to live.
| | | John Wilson (Guest) | 03/02/2010 16:19 | | “The RATE project is a YEC attempt to discredit radiometric dating for the simple reason that it completely destroys the case for YEC.”
“RATE is a desperate attempt to discredit established methods of age measurement. It is not predicated on genuine scientific research or concern with the reliability of methods.”
The assertions about the nature and intent of RATE may or may not be true as admittedly nearly all of its members are YEC. But their pre- supposition in a Young Earth does in no way nullify the very valid scientific questions they have raised which need to be addressed, and their main concern as they say is the “reliability of methods” which would contradict your above assertion. Personal attacks on character and integrity of highly qualified scientists does nothing to advance science and address the questions raised about dating methods. They are no different to the personal attacks and name calling of creationists that evolutionists resort to when the status quo is challenged or they want to avoid discussion of the evidence (or lack of).
“K/Ar dating is not suitable for younger igneous rocks. Geologists know this. It is one of the limitations of the system. Likewise Carbon dating is only suitable for relatively recent material”
That is true and is why the following question is raised by RATE is very valid “When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age?
For example radioisotope dating is commonly used on old rocks rather than recent ones because it is not accurate for young rocks, so in order to trust your findings you would have to already assume that the rocks are very old and not young to begin with! A faulty assumption about the rough age of the rock to begin with will inevitably affect the reliability of the outcome. Eg If we use K/Ar instead of Carbon dating on igneous rock that we wrongly assumed was very old but were actually only a few thousand years old then it would indeed be as you say trying to measure the thickness of hair with a meter stick but in this case we wouldn’t even realise the incompatibility of the tools because our assumptions were wrong.
If the earth is only thousands of years old as I believe the bible says then the rocks on the isle of Sky are only thousands of years old. Using radioisotope methods on the igneous rocks in sky will not yield accurate results
As for carbon dating it is now widely accepted that the relation of 14C /12C is not constant. This was discovered by Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method. And if we continue to assume it is a constant then that would only prove a young earth because If the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium). Since 14C is still out of equilibrium then earth is not as old as many think.
“One of the people heavily involved in this sort of stuff is Andrew Snelling. Snelling is a geologist who has done consultancy work for mining companies in Australia. He has papers published in reputable journals which relate to uranium deposits.”
I read the article in question by Andrew Snelling in which he uses terminology for rock layers and excepted dating methods. He is a highly qualified (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia)
But again labling him a geological Janus doesn’t nullify the valid questions and concerns he has about the reliability of dating methods regardless of what he may have previously believed. I don’t believe the same things I used to 5 years ago. If anyone is qualified and experienced enough in radiometric dating to express concerns about the methods its him.
His reply to the critism of Alex Richie can be found at http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_as_01.asp.
“Radiometric dating is crucial to our understanding of volcanic and magmatic processes. The more we know about the internal workings and processes of the earth, then we might be able to deal better with natural disasters. Who knows, we might be able to predict earthquakes with some degree of accuracy.”
This is a really good point and I’d like to make clear that I am not calling for the abandonment of mans radiometric dating methods, Just for people to realise that these methods are indeed fallible and often bring questionable results, too much faith is placed in mans so called “Facts” as opposed to the clear teaching of Scripture. (Or my particular interpretation as some will argue)
I don’t agree about Davis young’s comment regarding "anti-intellectual obscurantism” and again that is just a resort to name-calling. I do believe however there is such a thing though as intellectual pride which sadly affects so many teachers/leaders in the church. YEC do not forsake their God given brains but what they believe is foolishness not only to the world but to many in the church who have intellectual pride.
“Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.”
| | | John Wilson (Guest) | 03/02/2010 16:23 | | Adrea I couldn't agrea more.
|
(page
1
2
3
4
5)
|
|
|
