Even though the majority of the scientific community claims there is much physical evidence to support the theory of evolution, they reluctantly admit evolution is just that: a theory. According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, a "theory" is defined as "an hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation. An unproved assumption: CONJECTURE." Unfortunately, in our colleges and universities, evolution is taught as fact, not as "an unproved assumption." Not only is the theory of evolution unproven it is also a very poor scientific hypothesis. More than one aspect of this hypothesis demands the subversion of well-established laws of nature.

The violation of a law of science is a miracle. In fact, one might say that the theory of evolution depends upon the frequent occurrence of miracles. For example, evolutionists proclaim that the universe began by a “big bang.” This gigantic explosion supposedly resulted in the formation of stars, planets, galaxies and ultimately complex life. What force caused this “big bang”? In order for an explosion of this magnitude to occur there must have been a powerful driving force that instigated this catastrophe. Who, or what, created the matter that exploded, and who, or what, lit the fuse? The evolutionist’s claim they don’t know what caused such combustion to occur. Ultimately, they would have to admit that the “big bang” and the matter that created such an explosion was eternal, or that it came from nothing. This is a violation of the Law of Causality (Cause and Effect). The Law of Causality states, “that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause.” (Thompson, 1995, p. 31.)

If all the matter of which the universe consists came into existence from nothing then the evolutionists must state that there is not always an adequate antecedent cause for everything that occurs in the universe. The evolutionist states that without any existing matter, or without proper cause a gigantic explosion occurred which created the universe. What they are suggesting is that something can come from nothing. It would be the equivalent of stating that zero plus zero equals one. Nothing is not an adequate antecedent cause for something. To suggest that something can come from absolutely nothing is to state that a miracle has occurred on a grand scale. The evolutionists do not have an adequate cause for the sudden formation of matter and an ordered universe. In fact, they do not suggest a cause at all for the incredible amount of matter that presently exists. The Theory of Evolution violates the Law of Causality. When a well-established scientific law has been violated a miracle has occurred. In other words, the evolutionist’s explanation for the origin of the universe is that at some point in the distant past a miracle occurred which allowed the “Big Bang” to occur (without adequate cause).

On the other hand, the creationists believe in an eternal, all-powerful mind that spoke the universe into existence. The creationists are also suggesting that the universe was created via a miracle, however, their miracle is more consistent with the Law of Causality. An eternal, all-powerful God is an adequate cause for the creation of a universe (the effect) An all-powerful God could create anything He desired. The evolutionists and the creationists both teach that the universe came into existence by means of a miracle. However, the creationists proudly acknowledges the miraculous aspect to his theory while the evolutionist continues in vain to deny that his theory promotes a miraculous explanation for the origin of the universe.

After considering the Law of Causality the evolutionist might be tempted to suggest that the universe has always been. In other words, the matter that makes up the universe is eternal. However, the notion that matter is eternal violates the First Law of Thermodynamics that implies that matter is unable to create itself. In other words, it is impossible for matter to be eternal. It must have a creator. It has already been noted that a good definition of a “miracle” is “an act that subverts the laws of nature.” For one to suggest that matter is eternal would be defending a miraculous event greater in its scope then that of a universe created by divine all-powerful Being. Secondly, if matter is eternal, or if the universe was created from emptiness from a chaotic, random event like the “Big Bang” then the Second Law of Thermodynamics has also been violated. This unalterable principle demands that the universe must have an ordered beginning. Paul Davies, a professor of Natural Philosophy at the University of Adelaide, wrote in his book Super force that “The second law [of Thermodynamics] governs the way in which energy and matter can be exchanged between systems in an ordered way, and effectively forbids us from using the same quantity of energy over and over again for a useful purpose such as to run a machine. In a nutshell, the second law states that disorder can never spontaneously give rise to order…” (Davies, p. 34, 1995). It would be a scientific impossibility for any element (matter) in the universe to be eternal. Matter must come from an ordered design. However, evolutionists claim that the very ordered universe in which we live arose from chaos. What are the chances of a cosmic explosion creating a universe operated by well-established laws and supporting fully functioning intelligent life? It is impossible! Again, the evolutionists are supporting a miracle by suggesting that matter is eternal and that order came from chaos. It is more reasonable to assume that an eternal intelligent, all-powerful Being (God) created the universe. This latter miracle is far less complicated than the miracle that the evolutionists are proposing.

The Bible, which explains that matter is created, and that the universe did not emerge from chaos is more consistent with the laws of Thermodynamics. Another miracle supported by the evolutionists involves the violation of the well-established fact that life must come from life (Law of Biogenesis). Evolutionists teach that life originally developed from non-living matter. The theory that life can come from non-living material is known as Spontaneous Generation. This theory was disproved by Louis Pasteur in 1862. He showed in every case where spontaneous generation was thought to have occurred that foreign organic matter was introduced into the non-living material. When that organic matter grew it gave the appearance that life had come from a non-living substance. The principle of life coming from pre-existing life is an unalterable scientific fact. There is no exception to this law. However, evolutionists must insist that at some point in time this unalterable law was violated for no apparent reason. In other words, at some point in time a miracle occurred which allowed life to come from non-living matter. The theory of Evolution claims that the first signs of life emerged from a primordial mud puddle. This is promoting a scientific impossibility. The views of evolutionists on this matter are summed up by M.B.V. Roberts in his textbook of biology entitled Biology: A Functional Approach; From this idea that all life comes from pre-existing life, and all notions of spontaneous generation died a quiet death. Infact the latter theory became so unfashionable that some people could not even accept that the first organisms to evolve on this planet arose by spontaneous generation, preferring to believe that life was brought here by meteorites from other planets. For various reasons this is most unlikely, and we are therefore forced to conclude that life originally arose by spontaneous generation, even though the process appears not to be repeatable today. (Roberts, 1986, p. 342). In other words, Mr. Roberts recognizes that it is impossible for life to come from non-life, however, he still believes that at some point in time that is exactly what occurred. Mr. Roberts not only believes in a miracle, but he has more faith than do most Christians. Another thing that needs to be observed from Mr. Robert’s statement is the fact that the elements that make up his theory cannot be repeated in the laboratory today. It is amazing that countless evolutionists have dismissed the possibility of supernatural creation because it cannot be repeated in the laboratory. They fail to realize that their theory faces the same predicament. If we dismiss supernatural creation on this basis then we will also have to dismiss the theory of evolution on the same grounds. The Bible teaches that life comes from life. It suggests that a living Divine Being created all known life. This is consistent with the Law of Biogenesis that upholds the notion that life must come from pre-existing life. Evolution teaches that at some point in time life came from non-living material. This is a theory that is woefully inconsistent with known scientific law. The evolutionists also defend the miracle of transmutation from one genus to another. If we define a genus as a group of organisms that can breed and successfully produce fertile offspring then we are suggesting a definition that is consistent with the Biblical record and natural law. In other words, every living creature must produce after its own kind (Genesis 1:21-31). For example, apes and humans are not of the same genus for they cannot breed and successfully produce fertile offspring. To put it simply, apes produce apes and human beings produce human beings. This is an unbreakable biological and genetic law. However, the theory of evolution demands that the unalterable principles of biology and genetics were continually violated throughout the course of natural history to enable the development of an amoeba into a man. Simply put, biological law demands that every creature must produce after its own kind (Genesis 1:24)! Evolutionists try to prove that there is an close evolutionary link between humans and chimps by pointing out that ninety-nine percent of chimp DNA is shared by humans. Is it not more reasonable to believe that a supernatural Being miraculously created man and animals in their present state? The question then arises, “What about all the fossil evidence that appears to support the theory of evolution?” Does the fossil record indicate that man and other animals of the present age evolved from lower life forms? There is one thing to keep in mind when considering the so-called fossil evidence for evolution. We need to understand that because there are extinct forms of certain species (animals) it does not mean that they represent earlier stages of existing species (animals). For example, no one has suggested that woolly mammoths are an early evolutionary stage of our present day African or Indian elephant. To suggest that woolly mammoths are the evolutionary predecessors of living elephant types is to recommend something that the facts do not support. When palaeontologists uncover extinct ape types it does not mean that living apes or human beings evolved from those extinct primates. This is coming to an unfounded conclusion. Just because there are similarities in anatomy between extinct ape types and modern apes or men it does not mean that modern apes or men evolved from them. This is pointed out by evolutionists Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, “a trap that lurks for our all in our profession: similar anatomy does not always imply close evolutionary relationship.” (Leakey and Lewin, 1978, p.79) In other words, just because two creatures have physical similarities it does not mean that one evolved from the other.

Evolutionist and palaeontologist Roger Lewin put it in his book Bones of Contention, “It is a fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictates conclusions. If this were the case, Then each scientist faced with the same data would necessarily come to the same conclusion. But as we’ve seen earlier and will see again and again, frequently this does not happen. Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions.” (Lewin, 1987, p 68.) In other words, evolutionists do not look at the data objectively. They reach unfounded conclusions about the data (fossils) they have uncovered. In another statement Roger Lewin wrote of the discipline that supports evolution, “paleoanthropology is a science often short on data and long on opinion.” It is a field of study that relies on unsubstantiated and unreasonable notions. Only a few of the incredible miracles that evolutionists defend have been mentioned. Clearly, the evolutionist has a tremendous amount of faith. His theory is filled with miraculous events without any explanation as to how, or why, these events occurred.

                                                                                                                                           -Brett Rutherford

References

1. Thompson, Bert, The Scientific Case for Creation (Apologetics Press, Inc.: Montgomery, Alabama, 1995)

2. Davies, Paul, God and the New Physics (A Pelican Book: Ringwood, VIC, ND)

3. Roberts, MBV, Biology: A Functional Approach (1986)

4. Lewin, Roger, Bones of Contention (Simon and Schuster Inc: Sydney, 1987)