All posts by Dan Story

See my website at www.danstory.net

APOLOGETICS GOING ON THE OFFENSE

 

Part One: Why Putting the Burden of Proof on Skeptics Achieves More Successful Apologetics

Too often in discussions with non-Christians, we find ourselves pushed into a corner, with our arms folded, defending what we believe. But it shouldn’t be this way. We have God’s truth. Unbelievers should be the ones who defend what they believe—not us.

I believe the most effective way to achieve this is by putting the burden of proof on the skeptic; that is, go on the offensive during religious and ethical discussions. We do this by challenging skeptics to defend what they believe and provide legitimate evidence to support it. The idea of this apologetic tactic is to help unbelievers recognize their erroneous assumptions and face the logical conclusions.

Francis Schaeffer explained this tactic in his book The God Who Is There:

In reality no one can live logically according to his own non-Christian presuppositions. . . .  Regardless of a man’s system, he has to live in God’s world. If he were consistent to his non-Christian presuppositions he would be separated from the real universe. . . .

We ought not first try to move a man away from what he should deduce from his position but toward it. . .  .We try to move him in the natural direction in which his presuppositions would take him. We are then pushing him towards the place where he ought to be, had he not stopped short. (126-127)

Most skeptics of Christianity are merely parroting what they hear in popular culture: secular high schools and colleges, magazines, television documentaries, and the entertainment industry. Seldom do they have any objective evidence to justify their beliefs or wonder if their criticisms of Christianity are even legitimate. Most non-Christians just assume that what they learn through popular culture is reliable.

Putting the burden of proof on the unbeliever is a technique that can greatly increase our effectiveness in apologetics by bringing to light the unsubstantiated arguments that many non-Christians rely on in their attacks against Christianity. Once unbelievers realize for themselves that their beliefs about the Bible and the Christian worldview are erroneous—and their own worldview untenable—they may be more willing to consider the Christian perspective on the issue at hand. When this happens, we’ve won a small victory in today’s cultural war between increasingly dominant secularism and Christianity. ©

COMING UP:  This week’s blog post begins a new series. In future blogs, I will provide examples of the kinds of responses Christians can give that puts the burden of proof on skeptics and other critics—where it belongs. The examples I share will be relevant to the most common challenges and questions Christians face during apologetics or evangelistic discussions.

REMINDER:  The Christian position on the topics in this series can be read in detail in my newly released, revised and expanded edition of DEFENDING YOUR FAITH; RELIABLE ANSWERS FOR A NEW GENERATION OF SEEKERS AND SKEPTICS (Kregel Publications, 2019). I provide a short introduction on my homepage (click on “home” above), or go to my book page on Amazon and click on “Look Inside” for more information.  

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT REFUTES EVOLUTION WHILE CONFIRMING DIVINE CREATION

 

Part Eleven:  DOES THE FOSSIL RECORD REVEAL THAT FISH, AMPHIBIANS, REPTILES, BIRDS, AND MAMMALS EVOLVED ONE FROM ANOTHER?

According to naturalistic evolution, invertebrates (animals without backbones) suddenly appeared during the Cambrian Period (see last week’s blog) and continued to evolved into vertebrates—animals with backbones. Is there fossil evidence for this?

The first vertebrates reputed have evolved from invertebrates are fish. However, in spite of millions of years of purported evolution, not a single legitimate transitional fossil between invertebrates and fish have been found. When fish appear in the fossil record, they are fully developed—possessing fins, scales, and gills. Supposedly, after many million years, fish fins turned into legs, gills into lungs, and amphibians crawled out of the water. Yet when amphibians appear suddenly in the fossil record, they too are fully developed with no known transitional ancestors. The same is true for reptiles, birds, and mammals.

What about evolution within individual classes of animals, such as Mammalia (mammals)? The lack of transitional specimens occurs here too. Take for example the widely held evolutionary scenario that whales evolved from an ancestral land mammal some fifty million years ago. Imagine the modifications necessary to convert a land animal into a whale. It would require, among other changes, an entirely new body shape to facilitate efficient swimming; forearms, feet, and claws evolving into fins or flukes; nostrils moving onto the top of the head; and the emergence of tail flukes—not to mention all the changes that would have had to take place simultaneously within the internal organs and bone structures.

It’s been estimated it would take 50,000 intermediate transitional stages for a land-dwelling mammal to evolve into a sea-dwelling marine mammal.  This translates into countless millions of individual transitional specimens. Where are they? The fossil record has yet to reveal them. Like other mammals, whales appear suddenly in the fossil record fully formed and distinct from other mammals.

But what about all those transitional species illustrated in magazines, textbooks, and on the internet? Aren’t they replicas based on fossil evidence? No. In fact many textbook drawings of transitional species are simply artists’ conceptions of what they think such animals would look like if they did exist! Furthermore, virtually all so-called transitional species are examples of microevolution not macroevolution (see blog post eight in this series). There may be vague resembles between one class of animal and another, but none with distinct anatomical features that represent true transitions, such as half-feathers/half-scales, half-legs/half-wings, half-forearms/half-flukes, and so on. As the late Dr. Henry Morris, observed, “The evolutionary transition from invertebrates to vertebrates must have involved billions of animals, but no one has ever found a fossil of one of them.” (Scientific Creationism , 81-82). The same can be said about vertebrates. ©

Coming up: Next week I’ll start a new series of blog posts explaining how to put the burden of proof on skeptics when engaged in apologetic/evangelistic discussions—rather than just defending the Christian position on issues.

Reminder:  All the series of apologetic topics I’ve posted as blogs during the past six-plus years are considerably more developed in my recently released, updated edition of Defending Your Faith; Reliable Answers for a New Generation of Seekers and Skeptics (Kregel Publications, 2019). I provide a short synopsis on my homepage above, or go to my book page on Amazon and click on “Look Inside” for more information.  

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT REFUTES EVOLUTION WHILE CONFIRMING DIVINE CREATION

Part Ten:  DARWIN’S UNSOLVED MYSTERY: WHERE ARE THE TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD?

Let’s assume by some miracle single-celled life somehow emerged out of a primordial, inorganic muck (see part four) and evolved into multi-celled animals. According to the evolutionary timeline, multicellular life would have had to evolve virtually “overnight.” This well-known fact is a result of the so-called “Cambrian Explosion,” and it’s a formidable argument against naturalistic evolution because, as philosopher of scientist Stephen Meyer put it, the “phenomenon would have required the sudden infusion of massive amounts of new genetic and other biological information that only could have come from an intelligent source.” (The Case for a Creator, 238)

Evolutionists believe that for several billion years prior to the Cambrian Period life on earth consisted almost entirely of single-celled organisms such as bacteria and algae. Suddenly, about 550 million years ago, the Cambrian Period exploded on the geological scene. During a mere five to fifteen million years (a minute length of time in evolutionary history), well-preserved representative fossils of nearly every phyla of invertebrates (animals without backbones) that ever lived suddenly appeared in the fossil record. These highly complex organisms include trilobites, jellyfish, worms, corals, mollusks, starfish, sea urchins, and the supposed ancestors of spiders, insects and crustaceans (crabs, lobsters, shrimp, and  so on).

What’s difficult for Darwinist to explain is the high degree of complexity in these creatures, how they evolved so quickly, and where is the fossil record of their ancestors? All the representative Cambrian invertebrates suddenly appeared in the fossil record fully formed and without ancestors. In other words, millions of species of diverse, complex, highly organized, multi-celled animals supposedly evolved from single-celled organisms without a single pre-Cambrian transitional fossils ever being found.

Not only do many highly complex invertebrates have no evolutionary past, they have no evolutionary future. Those that have not become extinct have changed little or not at all from their first appearance in the fossil record to the present day. For example, many modern insects and other arthropods (dragonflies, cockroaches, centipedes, crustaceans, spiders, etc.) showed up in the fossil record millions of years ago fully developed and looking almost exactly as they do today, except for size. (Many fossilized insects are larger than modern specimens.) Evolutionary scientists estimate that it would require 250 million years, for instance, for insects to evolve. But where are the missing 250 million years of transitional fossils that supposedly evolved into insects?

The lack of ancestral species prior to the Cambrian Period, and limited physical modifications in crustaceans and arthropods, are easily explained in the creationist’s model of origins. They have no ancestors because God created them! Moreover, when God created various “kinds” of animals, He also created their genetic potential for diverse design forms (microevolution, see part eight). Thus, subsequent species are relatively minor variants of the original created designs. ©

Next week’s blog will focus on vertebrates—animals with backbone. Is their fossil evidence to prove they evolved from invertebrates and continued to evolve into fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals?

 

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT REFUTES EVOLUTION WHILE CONFIRMING DIVINE CREATION

Part Nine: WHY MUTATIONS FAIL TO SUPPORT EVOLUTION

When the structure of DNA was unraveled during the mid-twentieth century, Darwin’s theory of natural selection received renewed support. Evolutionists believed they had finally discovered the fuel that powered the slow and gradual evolution of new species—mutations. Here’s how this supposedly worked.

Random changes in DNA molecules (mutations), which carry hereditary information, benefit an organism. This new genetic material gives the creature a slight advantage in the struggle to survive, allowing it to propagate and pass on the trait to its descendants through natural selection. Supposedly, over eons of time and countless beneficial mutations, a new genetically distinct species eventually evolved. There are two insurmountable problems with this scenario.

First, beneficial mutations are rare. Almost all mutations are harmful and either kills the organism or reduces its chance for survival. In other words, a deformity weakens, not increases, an animal’s survival potential.

Experiments, such as those with fruit flies, have confirmed this.  Scientists have produced all kinds of weird fruit flies in laboratories, but never a new species of fly. For example, scientists have bred a four-winged fruit fly (normal fruit flies have two wings), but instead of a faster-flying, more agile fruit flies, the extra wings lacked flight muscles. The mutated flies could not survive in nature.

The second insurmountable problem with the assumption that organisms can accumulate enough beneficial mutations to evolve into entirely new species is the time factor. The time required for a primitive animal to evolve into a higher animal through random mutations and natural selection does not exist—even on an evolutionary timetable. Not just Earth but the universe itself is not old enough for today’s complex living organisms to have evolved from single-celled organisms through random mutational change. Evolutionary change does not occur in a few generations, nor do a few new traits result in an entirely new species. There must be a continuous sequence of complementary mutations over eons of time.

In the past, when confronted with the necessity of countless multiple and subsequent mutations, evolutionists fell back on the claim that Earth is about five billion years old. There was plenty of time, they insisted, for higher life forms to evolve from primitive ancestors. This ruse is no longer available. With the advent of “super (high-speed) computers,” scientists have simulated the random, trial-and-error processes promulgated by evolutionists. “The outcome was jolting: The computers showed that the probability of evolution by chance processes is essentially zero, no matter how long the time scale.” (How Now Shall We Live? p. 73.)

Biologist Dr. Gary Parker explained that the chance of getting three related mutations in a row is one in a billion trillion (1021). To illustrate the odds of this, he stated that “the ocean isn’t big enough to hold enough bacteria to make it likely for you to find a bacterium with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations. . . .  What about trying for four related mutations? 1028 All of a sudden, the earth itself isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely. . . .  At this point some evolutionists have given up the classic idea of evolution, because it just plainly doesn’t work.” (What is Creation Science? p. 63) ©

Next week we’ll explore evolution’s unsolved mystery: Where are the transitional fossils in the fossil record?

 

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT REFUTES EVOLUTION WHILE CONFIRMING DIVINE CREATION

Part Eight:  MACROEVOLUTION VERSUS MICROEVOLUTION: WHICH DOES EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SUPPORT?

Despite the lack of fossil evidence (see last week’s blog), evolutionists insist that modern animals evolved from primitive ancestors. Allegedly, according to evolutionary theory, in the distant past all living things shared common ancestors. Over eons of time, they believe, physical modifications occurred as animal types developed new body parts and more complex organs. Eventually, these accumulated modifications resulted in entirely new varieties of animals. The ancestors became extinct, and new species arose to take their place. This is called macroevolution.

The mistake evolutionists make in this assumption is they confuse macroevolution with Microevolution. Macroevolution is pure conjecture. Microevolution is testable, observable, and hence scientific.

Microevolution refers to limited changes that occur in organisms as they adapt to changing environmental conditions within the limits of their created genetic potential, resulting in variations within existing animal types.

Creationists have long recognized microevolution, which is well established scientifically. Selective breeders have used it for centuries to produce hundreds of varieties of dogs, cats, and other domesticated animals, as well as countless varieties of plants. However, these variations do not represent evolution as commonly understood; they did not produce distinct new kinds of animals or plants. In fact, selective breeding contradicts naturalistic evolution because it requires the manipulation of genes through intelligent human intervention—design.

How Microevolution Works in Nature

God created living creatures “after their kind” (Gen. 1:24-25).  In scientific terms, this means God created the original “prototypes” of all the categories of animals that ever existed—extinct and modern. He endowed each created kind with a specific genetic potential, such as we see in families of canines, felines, horses, and so on. There is no evidence, however, as is purported to occur through macroevolution, that one variety of animal ever evolved into another variety. For example, all canines— wolves, coyotes, foxes, jackals, domesticated dogs, and so on—developed from the genetic potential of the first dog-kind. But this is not macroevolution, which claims that modern canines evolved from a pre-dog ancestor. Rather its microevolution, through which the decedents of God’s original created dog-kind utilized their existing genetic potential for adaptive change—but strictly within the limits of their original, created genetic structure.

Microevolution is testable and observable, but science has never been able to demonstrate macroevolution. No one has witnessed the evolution of distinct varieties of animals. Laboratory experiments and observations in nature have only confirmed microevolution. Species can develop no further than the limits of their created genetic potential. (More on this next week.)

In sum, there is a tremendous difference between adaptive changes within animal kinds (microevolution) and the evolution of entirely new kinds of animals from entirely different kinds of animals (macroevolution). Evolutionary scientists who preach macroevolution are merely extrapolating that the “machinery” at work in microevolution also works in macroevolution. There is no proof of this. (C)

The case against macroevolution (Darwinism) gets worse when we look at the “mechanism” Darwinists claim drives evolution. This will be the topic of next week’s blog.

NOTE:  This series of blog posts—as well as other apologetic topics I’ve blogged during the past six-plus years—are further developed in my recently released, updated edition of Defending Your Faith; Reliable Answers for a New Generation of Seekers and Skeptics (Kregel Publications, 2019). I provide a short synopsis on my homepage: danstory.net. or go to Amazon for information.  

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT REFUTES EVOLUTION WHILE CONFIRMING DIVINE CREATION

Part Seven:  HOW DOES THE FOSSIL RECORD REFUTE  EVOLUTION?

 It’s one thing for Darwinists to argue that events that cannot be tested or replicated support naturalistic evolution (previous blog posts in this series); it’s quite another for them to deny empirical evidences for creation that can be examined today, such as the fossil record. The case for evolution depends primarily on the fossil record, which is the only potentially concrete evidence that can either prove or disprove naturalistic evolution.

Darwinists claim the fossil record reveals a gradual evolution of animal life from primitive forms to complex forms with transitional phases between major groups (fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds/mammals). If this is true, there should be many thousands of transitional specimens in the fossil record.

The fact is, there is virtually no support for evolution in the fossil record. There is no actual fossil evidence that shows primitive life forms evolved into complex life forms because no credible transitional fossils between any groups of animals have been found. Honest paleontologists admit this. The late Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History and editor of its journal, was asked why he didn’t include photographs of transitional fossils in his book, Evolution. He replied, “If I knew of any, fossils or living, I would certainly have included them.” (Darwin’s Enigma; Fossils and Other Problems, 89.)

Charles Darwin knew there were no transitional fossils when he formulated his theory during the mid-nineteenth century. He merely assumed they existed. In chapter six of his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote: “First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” (The Origin of Species and the Descent of Man, 124)

Today, after many decades of accumulated fossil evidence, paleontologists still haven’t discovered any conclusive transitional fossils—not even any transitional parts, such as a half-scale/half-feather or half-leg/half-wing. Scholar and author, Nancy Pearcey, wrote about this:

Instead of filling in the gaps, new [fossil] findings have actually made the gaps more pronounced than ever. Why? Because the fossil forms tend to fall within existing groups, leaving clear gaps between groups—just as there are clear gaps between modern animals like horses and cows, dogs and cats. Put another way, variation tends to be limited to change within groups, instead of leading gradually from one group to another.  (Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity, 166.)

Pearcey’s comment, “variation tends to be limited to change within groups, instead of leading gradually from one group to another,” refers to one of the most important concepts defenders of divine creation need to understand: The difference between microevolution and macroevolution. This will be to topic of next week’s blog. ©

Note:  This series—and many of my previous apologetic blog posts during the past six-plus years – are fully developed in my newly released revised and expanded edition of Defending Your Faith (Kregel Publications, 2019). It can be ordered by clicking on “order books” above.

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT REFUTES EVOLUTION WHILE CONFIRMING DIVINE CREATION

 

Part Six: WHY EVOLUTION CAN’T EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN DNA

Observationally as well as scientifically, nature virtually screams out for created order and design. From the simplest one-celled organism to the human brain (the most complex matter in the known universe), intelligence and purpose are clearly at work.

Another powerful and compelling evidence for this is the incredible amount of information programed into DNA. “A single cell in the human body contains as much information as the Encyclopedia Britannica—all thirty volumes—three or four times over.” (How Now Shall We Live, 75) Today’s blog will explore where this vast amount of information housed in DNA originated—something Darwinists can’t do.

Living things possess a nonmaterial property called information. This information is a language or “molecular message” programed into DNA. (DNA provides instructions to the cells for constructing proteins.) However, because the information contained in DNA is nonmaterial—it isn’t physical matter—it can’t be identified as, or reduced to, the actual chemical composition of the DNA. Therefore, it is not subject to evolutionary processes. As philosopher of science, Stephen Meyers, put it, “Neither chance, nor chance combined with natural selection, nor self-organizational processes have the causal power to produce information.” (The case for a Creator, 237.)

So, where did the information in DNA originate? Creationists argue that the vast amount of information housed in DNA—how it’s encoded and transmitted—requires an intelligent source. It had to have been programmed into DNA because the information content in DNA is information—not matter. Just like the information in my new book (see the cover photo and short synopsis on my homepage) is more than paper and ink existing independent of my thoughts, so information in DNA cannot be reduced to merely physical properties. In other words, the information housed in DNA must be programmed into DNA, just as my thoughts are printed as specific words in the book. The information in our DNA requires and intelligence source—a Programmer—not accidental processes as natural selection would require.

As an analogy, think of the difference between our immaterial minds and our physical brains. If you look at brain cells through a microscope, you would only see brain tissue—not thoughts. Our thoughts are a property of our minds, which is the essential faculty of our souls. (This is why our minds remain intact within our souls when our souls leave our bodies at physical death.)  Likewise, the information and instructions within DNA can’t be explained as merely physical properties that arose out of random evolutionary processes. Information can’t evolve and randomness produces disorder, not order; it does not organize data. An intelligent Creator (God) had to have programmed the vast amount of information into DNA. ©

This brings us to another assumption of naturalistic evolution: the fossil record confirms Darwinism. In next week’s blog we’ll see why the fossil record does no such thing.

Note:  This series –  and many of my blog series during the past six-plus years – are fully developed in Defending Your Faith. It can be ordered by clicking on “order books” above.

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT REFUTES EVOLUTION WHILE CONFIRMING DIVINE CREATION

Part Five: NO FUNCTION = NO NATURAL SELECTION = NO EVOLUTION

According to the evolution paradigm, natural selection makes random improvements in function at every stage of an organism’s development. Natural selection itself has no power to create new parts from scratch; it only acts on existing designs already built into a system. If a part has no function, it will have no survival value and natural selection cannot begin to operate. The result: no evolution.

In his 1993 book, Darwin’s Black Box, biochemist Michael Behe made popular the phrase, irreducible complexity. Behe drew attention to the fact that organisms, even at a molecular level, are complex, organized systems comprised of innumerable, interacting parts. If any one of these parts is not fully developed and functioning from the beginning, the organism can’t survive. Hence, for an organism to evolve, each of these individual, interrelated parts must have evolved simultaneously while retaining function at each stage of development.

Behe illustrated this with a mousetrap. He pointed out that a mousetrap is composed of five parts (base, spring, hammer, holding bar, and trigger). Remove any one of these parts, and the mousetrap doesn’t work. Moreover, if any one of these parts were not fully functioning at all times throughout the “evolution” of a mousetrap, the trap would be useless. In other words, remove the spring, and the trap won’t work. Replace it with a partly developed spring, and the trap still won’t work.

The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. It could not have “evolved” step-by-step because it could not function until all the parts were fully formed and working together. Behe likened the mousetrap to sophisticated biological systems, some with hundreds of interacting parts, each of which would have had to evolve simultaneously and be fully functioning during each step of each part’s development. There is no evolutionary pathway to explain how this can happen.

The concept of irreducible complexity can be applied on a much larger scale than at a molecular level. Take the scenario of a reptile’s forearms evolving into bird wings. On an evolutionist’s timeline, this would take millions of years and leave behind the testimony of an inestimable number of transitional species—something not seen in the fossil record. Unless the reptile developed an appendage that met its survival needs at all stages of is development, the appendage would have no usable function and therefore not develop. A half wing/half leg would not benefit a reptile or a bird; thus. a half wing/half leg would have no function and therefore no survival value. it would not evolve.

How do creationists account for fully developed organisms with innumerable interacting parts, none of which, in an evolutionary scenario, would have any function and therefore survival value at any intermediate stage development? The same way we account for a fully developed mousetrap. It’s a product of an intelligent Designer—in this case God. ©

Next Week we’ll look at the incredible amount of information programed into DNA and see  why this vast amount of information  cannot be reduced to merely the physical properties of DNA. It requires an intelligent programmer—God.

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT REFUTES EVOLUTION WHILE CONFIRMING DIVINE CREATION

Part Four:  WHY EVOLUTION CAN’T EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

Naturalistic evolution (Darwinism) requires life to have somehow emerged accidentally from non-life to launch random, undirected biological evolution. Is there any empirical evidence for this (i.e. evidence derived from observation or experimentation)? None.

The same indisputable design observed throughout the universe (see last week’s blog) is also found in life on Earth. And just as with the universe, accident and chance operating without purpose or design cannot account for the origin and incredible complexity of life on Earth. Only a supreme intelligence could have organized the raw materials needed for even the simplest living cell to exist—let alone complex organisms.

Nevertheless, Darwinists claim that at least once, some three and a half billion years ago, inorganic (non-living) chemicals in some kind of “prebiotic soup” reacted randomly with sunlight, lightning, or another energy source that allowed self-replicating cells to develop by accident. Called “abiogenesis,” this process supposedly initiated the evolutionary journey of all living things.

Does the scientific evidence support abiogenesis? No. This phenomenon has never been observed in nature. Nor—in spite of numerous attempts—has life been created from non-life in a laboratory. There is no known mechanism explaining how living organisms could have emerged from an alleged chemical soup. In fact, no physical evidence indicates that such a “soup” ever existed.

The real obstacle to life emerging out of non-life, however, is that it is statistically impossible. The earth is not old enough for even the simplest organism to spring out of a primordial soup—even if it did exist. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross provided the necessary figures to illustrate this:

            Years ago, molecular biophysicist Harold Morowitz calculated . . . that if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10100,000,000,000. . . . With odds remote as 1 in 10100,000,000,000 the time scale issue becomes completely irrelevant. . . . The size of the universe is of no consequence either. If all the matter in the visible universe were converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe, then instead of the odds being 1 in 10100,000,000,000 they would be 1 in 1099,999,999,916. (The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific  Discoveries of the Century Reveal God (139-140).

For the less mathematically minded, renowned British mathematician and astronomer, the late Sir Fred Hoyle, offered another illustration to demonstrate the statistical impossibility of life emerging by chance. He described the probability as similar to that of a tornado passing through a junkyard would leave behind a Boeing 747!

In short, no scientific evidence has revealed that inorganic, non-living chemicals ever evolved—or could evolve—into organic life. ©

Next Week:  We’ll see why natural selection can’t work in terms of evolving new species of life.

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT REFUTES EVOLUTION WHILE CONFIRMING DIVINE CREATION

Part Three:   IN THE BEGINNING” . . . WHAT? A COSMIC ACCIDENT (ATHEISM) OR ORDER AND DESIGN WITH PURPOSE (GOD)?

According to Secular cosmologists and naturalistic evolution, following the big bang (see part two) the universe somehow arose—accidentally and by pure chance—out of chaos and disorder to become an orderly and unmistakably designed universe.  In other words, the laws of physics, the formation of stars and other astronomical features, the Milky Way and other galaxies, our solar system and the perfect placement of planets within it, and in particular our habitable Earth, all came about merely by  accident, without purpose, pattern, or reason. This is the second foundational assumption on which naturalistic evolution depends.

With the lack of empirical evidence for this imaginary scenario—along with the flawless design of the visible cosmos—this is a hard pill to swallow. It’s easy to see this atheistic hypothesis as little more than a pathetic attempt to jettison God as creator of the universe and life.  What’s more, there is powerful and compelling scientific evidence to refute it. In particular, scientific discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics demonstrate that the universe could exist only within very narrow margins. Necessary “fundamental constants” must be place throughout the universe and on Earth that are essential for either to exist. For example:

  • If the structure of the atom differed in terms of the ratio of proton to electron mass, molecules could not form.
  • If the force of gravity slowed the expansion of the universe even slightly (or if expansion was faster), it would have been impossible for galaxies and the solar system to have formed.
  • If the speed of light were slightly faster or slower, other constants in the universe would be altered, making any kind of life impossible.
  • If the centrifugal force of planets rotating around the sun did not balance exactly with gravitational forces, the planets would  not remain in orbit.
  • If the chemical composition of the atmosphere were different, the atmosphere would be poisonous.
  • If the sea-to-land-mass ratio, depth of the oceans, and the Earth’s cloud cover were different, the Earth’s ability to store and release heat would change dramatically.

These are just a few of the many dozens of necessary constants that maintain the order and stability of Earth and the cosmos. How do we account for such a fine-tuned universe?  There are only two options. Evolutionary scientists conclude it is merely a cosmic accident, a matter of pure chance.

The only other explanation for the existence of a perfectly balanced and orderly universe—as well as for life on Earth—is an Intelligent Designer. It appears infinitely more probable God designed the universe and created Earth. It is irrational, unverifiable, and statistically outrageous to merely assume (as evolutionary cosmologists do) that all of these fine-tuned factors are the result of mere chance. ©

The next step in the hypothetical evolutionary scenario is that life somehow and by pure chance arose from non-life—which requires chemical evolution. This is the fourth foundational assumption of Darwinism, and it will be refuted in next week’s blog.