Basic HTML Version
extend their normal mutation rate.
The outcome? Nothing has been
produced except more bizarre vari–
eties of fruit flys.
We now leave the laboratory for
a stroll into the field. Both evolu–
tionists and creationists claim that
the record in the rocks- the fos–
si ls-vindicates their point of view.
But can old bones really tell us
anything much about the creation
or evolution of life?
No Bones About Jt
What
do
the bones in the geologic
column, as constructed by paleon–
tologists, tell us? A species appears
suddenly in the strata, remains es–
sentially unchanged throughout the
strata and disappears suddenly at
the end of the strata.
lf
any deduc–
tion is to be made, it is that species
maintain themselves without sig–
nificant change (evolution)
through millions of years.
In recent years, a number of evo–
lutionists have ceased beating their
heads against the rocks. They have
altered their theory to "fit" what
seems to be observed. Sorne are
promoting "punctuated equi–
librium." Evolution is now said to
occur
suddenly,
dramatically,
quickly and only among
very small
populations.
The newly evolved species is
then said to remain unchanged for
milUons of years until it dies out in
another sudden, dramatic and rapid
evolutionary "punctuation."
That's an interesting theory. But
did such evolution occur? We can
never know based on the demands
of the scientific method. No one
observed this claimed "punctua–
tion" in progress and we cannot
repeat it in the laboratory.
Beyond that the evolutionists are
still arguing from
missing
evi–
dence. We don't have those quar–
ter-winged reptile-bird monsters,
for example. But even if we had,
we could not
scientifically
verify
the quarter-winger as actually be–
ing a missing link.
But let's see what the record has
said for more than 125 years.
Charles Darwin on fossil bones,
1859. He asked, "Why ... is not
every geological formation and ev–
ery stratum full of ... intermediate
links?" Should they not be? Dar–
win thought so. But he didn' t find
November/ December 1986
them. Said Darwin: "Geology as–
suredly does not reveal any such
finely-graduated organic chain; and
this, perhaps, is the most obvious
and serious objection which can be
urged against the theory" (
Origin
of Species,
Charles Darwin, Har–
vard Classics Edition, New York:
P.F. Collier, 1909, pp. 319-320).
Darwin went on faith, anyway.
He hoped that others would fill in
all the blanks with bones. Have
they? No, indeed. As Stepben Jay
Gould says, "The absence of fossil
evidence for intermediary stages
between majar transitions in or–
ganic design, indeed our inability,
even in our imagination, to con–
struct functional intermediates in
many cases, has been a
persisten!
and nagging problem
for gradualis–
tic accounts of evolution"
(Evolu–
tion Now,
p. 140, emphasis added) .
Scientiflc Creatlonism?
We leave evolution for the moment
to look at the theory of creation as
put forth by "scientific creation–
ists." Generally, modern creation–
ists claim tbat the earth, alllife and
the rest of the known universe are
about 6,000 to 10,000 years old.
In arder to substantiate this
claim, they must
unscientifically
contradict various means of mea–
surement of age.
The earth's age, in particular, is
scientifically measurable by the de–
cay rate of naturally occurring ra–
dioactive isotopes into their stable
atomic forms. The decay of potas–
sium-40 into argon-40 would be
one example. This decay occurs
with a half-life of 1,300,000,000
years. The rub for creationists is
that the decay preseotly occurs at a
constant rate
over time, unaffected
by any externa! conditions of which
they are aware.
To make their theory work,
modern creationists must postulate
something we cannot discern by
the scientific method: that radioac–
tive elements decayed at an incred–
ibly faster rate than they do now.
Creationists sometimes also claim
that matter was created with the
"appearance of age." We cannot
substantiate this scientifically. We
canoot observe a uoiverse being so
created
now.
Neither can we exper–
imeotally prove that the decay rate
was differeot thao it now is.
We are at an impasse. Both sci–
entific creationism and evolution
are ultimately untestable by the
scientific method.
If
we limit
ourselves to science alone, we must
become
agnostics
("don't know"
people) regarding the origin of
matter or life.
Every human beiog, though he
or she does not want to admit it, is
reduced to one common denomina–
tor: believing on
faith.
The evolu–
tiooists' theory of evolution is
based oo faith; so is scientific cre–
ationism. There is oothing wroog
with faith. Indeed, it is
essential
to
answer the question of origins. The
importaot question is: What is the
source
of your faith? Evolutionists
must rely oo whether their theory
is falsifiable, that is, capable of be–
ing proved false.
Of course, there can be only one
source for revealed koowledge oo
the question of origins. It must be
provided for us by a Being who has
always ex isted. Ooe who was
present
at Creation. There is only
one such possibility; the Personage
must be God.
That is why the apostle Paul
wrote almost 2,000 years ago: "By
faith
[not the scieotific method]
we understand that the worlds
were framed by the word of God,
so that the things which are seeo
were oot made of things which are
visible" (Heb. 11 :3, all references
from the
New King James Revised
Authorized Version).
A Book of Supernatural Deeds
Now, how would a being such as
God go about the task of proving
bis existence-and bis creative
acts-to us limited mortals? He
could, for example, have a kind of
autobiography of bis deeds. There
is such a book that contains many
claims from the one who does cal!
himself Lord or God.
There is a special quality about
this autobiographical book, which
this God claims is bis Word, the
Bible.
Jt
is made up of a higher
arder of information- sections of it
are totally beyond the ability of the
scientific method to analyze.
From Genesis 1:1 ("In the be–
ginning God created the heavens
and the earth ...") to Revelation
21:5 ("Behold, I make all things
new . . .") are recorded those his-
25