Overview
The charge to me is to illustrate that the creation theory is no more a leap of faith than the evolution theory. The
restrictions placed on me are:
- No Biblical quotes
- No relying on the "complexity and awesome beauty" argument
- No disproving evolution to prove creation.
According to Webster, science is systematized knowledge derived from
observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to
determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.
I hope to demonstrate the creation theory has as much scientific
credentials as the evolution theory.
Introduction
Lots of information and arguments can be made on either side
of this debate. I have paired down the issues to observation and
study of basic laws of nature, examining the fossil record, and the
age of the earth. I also point out a some of the unsolved problems of
evolution, not to prove creation but rather, to establish the standard
for a theory to be considered in the origins of the universe.
A simple summary of the creation story is to that origins of the
universe is a completed work by a supernatural external
power and the net present decrease in complexity. Under this model
we can predict that:
- Types of rock formations are similar in all "Ages"
- Life only comes from life
- Distinct kinds of organisms
- No new kinds of life appearing
- Mutations in organisms are harmful on the whole
- Natural selection is a conservative process
- Fossil record will show systematic gaps
- No ape-human intermediates
- Origins of civilization is contemporaneous with man.
One point that need more attention is:
- Origins of civilization is contemporaneous with man.
This is indirectly addressed via the age of the earth.
The premise is that if the origins of civilization is contemporaneous
with man then the earth could and likely would be approximately the same
age as civilization and/or man.
Below are the other points. These points will be explored later.
- Do the basic laws of nature support:
- Life only comes from life
- Mutations in organisms are harmful on the whole
- Natural selection is a conservative process
- Does the fossil record support:
- Types of rock formations are similar in all "Ages"
- Distinct kinds of organisms
- No new kinds of life appearing
- Fossil record will show systematic gaps
- No ape-human intermediates
Basic Laws of Nature
The creation model postulates a primeval creation which was both
complete and perfect, as well as purposeful. It is postulated, first,
that a principle of conservation would be established to assure the
accomplishment of the purpose of the created entities and, second,
any changes which come in and intrude, as it were, on the perfect
creation are bound to be harmful. The "Laws of Thermodynamics" confirm this
prediction.
The law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of motion,
and all other truly basic laws appear to always function in the way
they do now. The "Law of Mass Conservation" and the
"Law of Energy Conservation" show conservation and stability which is
consistent with the creation model.
A little more philosophical consideration is the law of
"cause-and-effect" only the creation model provides an adequate answer
(The universe could not be its own cause). The theory of
relativity teaches that all frames of reference as to size,
position, time and motion in the world are relative, not absolute
(universe can not be an absolute in itself).
Consider that there are far more harmful mutations than beneficial.
It would then be more probable that a population would slip backward
rather than move forward. All observed instances of natural selection
involve conservative adaptations to the environment (ie. peppered
moth) not generation or preservation of mutants of higher order.
Mutations are harmful, not helpful, and natural selection acts to
try to prevent their getting established in the population as a whole.
Second Law of Thermodynamics
Lets focus on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In layman terms;
the context of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in classical
thermodynamics teaches in any physical change that takes place by
itself the entropy always increases.
Statistical thermodynamics would characterize the second law as
every system has a characteristic quality called entropy associated
with it. The entropy measures the degree of disorder associated with
the system. Process always occur in such a way that the entropy
increases.
Informational thermodynamics incorporates the concept
of entropy as a measure of the "noise" or degree of
uncertainty in the communication of the information.
We all have seen seeds turn into trees, water freeze, and no one
believes the earth is a closed system. Before going much farther
let's look at what a couple of evolutions have said.
Dr. Harold Blum:
"No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems
we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles, but we do
encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living world."
Isaac Asimov:
"Another way of stating the second law then is
'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly'.
Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us.
We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself,
it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily.
Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty.
How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies
in perfect working order, how easy to let them deteriorate.
In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates,
collapses, breaks down, wears out -- all by itself -- and that is
what the second law is all about"
The second law does apply to all systems, open or closed.
Every system, whether open or closed, tends to deteriorate.
We all agree the universe is a closed system so the origins
of the universe are best explained by the creation theory.
Furthermore, the processes of life are fundamentally very complex
chemical processes, and the laws of thermodynamics do apply to
chemical processes. Add in that the flow of
uncontrolled, raw energy into a system is destructive --
it takes a leap of faith to believe life started by a
process of self-transformation.
Information and Mechanism to Convert Energy
Let's come back to the seed to a tree example.
What conditions must be met for a low entropy complex organized system
to be produced? Here are at least four of the conditions:
- The system must be an open system
- An adequate outside supply of energy must be available
- An energy conversion system must exist to convert the raw,
uncontrolled energy coming in from the outside to a controlled form
that can be utilized in a constructive way by the system undergoing change
- There must be a control system capable of regulating the
activities of the system undergoing change, such that the changes
are progressive and integrative rather than meaningless and destructive.
Again, the creation theory has no problem explaining how the
third and fourth conditions are met, the creator designed them in the
beginning.
Ordered vs Organized
Let's look at the water freezing example. First, lets be sure that
we realize we are talking about an "ordered"
system and not an "organized" system. As ice forms, energy (80
calories/gm) is liberated to the surroundings.
The change in entropy of the system as
the amorphous water becomes crystalline ice is
-0.293 entropy units (eu)/degree Kelvin (K). The entropy change
is negative because the thermal and configuration entropy (or
disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly
ordered crystal. While lowering the thermal agitation draws water
molecules into orderly crystalline array (via atomic bonding), no
such lowering of the thermal agitation will draw amino acids together (the
building blocks of life).
Fossil Record under Examination
In the creation model, one would expect an array of distinct
kinds of organisms that would contain both similarities and
differences. Furthermore, there would be gaps between the
different kinds of organisms. The similarities are expected
when a similar purpose is involved. The differences are expected
when different functions are served. No evolving
of one kind of organism to another would happen and thus gaps should
be present in the fossil record essentially the same gaps as in the
present world.
How are fossils formed in the first place? To become fossilized a
plant/animal usually needs to have hard
parts (bones, shell, wood, etc), quickly buried, and
undisturbed throughout the long process.
The creation model would expect the fossil record to show a wide
variety of organisms much like today. The model would
expect fossil assemblages to represent ecological communities.
The model would expect animals living at the lowest elevations to be
buried at the lowest elevations.
There would be few in any terrestrial sediments or land plants or
animals in the lower strata of the geologic columns. Larger more
diversified animals would be higher
in the column since they could escape burial for longer
periods of time. Man would escape burial (not necessarily
death) for the most part and few human fossils would be present.
This is a general guide and given the nature of
a cataclysmic model, some exceptions are expected to the
general guide. They should be just that - an exception.
As a closing thought on the fossil record, how were the footprints
found in fossils created?
A Young Earth?
How old is the earth? Previously, I asserted that the amount of dust
on the moon was too small for the moon to be billions of years old.
Mark Rupright countered that orbiting satellites seem to indicate that
the amount of cosmic dust in the vicinity of the earth and moon may be
much less than earlier measurements indicated. Well I have now
learned that radar, rocket, and satellite data published in 1976 by
NASA and the Smithsonian Institution validate the claim of
higher cosmic dust filtering onto the earth and moon.
In addition, the evolutionist theory assumes much more dust in the
past than is currently present. So where did all the dust go?
The evolution theory claims the geologic columns have gradually
built-up over millions (if not billions) of years.
This would mean that meteorites would have been incorporated
into the geologic columns. Meteorites are recognizable by
their high nickel content and thus we should find be able to
detect these meteorites. No meteorites have been found in the
geologic columns.
The Poynting-Robertson effect teaches us that debris will
eventually be pulled in by the sun's gravitational force.
Given the small mass of the cosmic dust, it should not take
long to clear the dust. Furthermore, the Poynting-Robertson
effect would have a sorting effect on meteor streams.
However observed meteor showers by Fred Whipple and his research
team found no dispersion in the meteor stream.
The average life span of short-period comets are on the order of
1,500 to 10,000 years. Today, we still have an
abundance of them. So how are these short-period comets
being produced?
R.V. Gentry and others indicated that coal believed to be
approximately 100 million years old, is in reality only a
few thousand years old. They conducted the same survey on
coalified wood found in the Devonian Chatanooga shale.
This shale commonly is believed to be around 350 million years
old, Gentry showed could not possible be that old.
The survey is done by radioactive dating of uranium where double
halos are found where the first halo is oval followed by a circular
one. The assumption is that the oval halo was first a circle that
was later compressed. Since the second halo is circular it is
concluded that the uranium must have
been in the wood prior to the wood turning into coal.
Only Time Will Tell
Barry Setterfield has examined all known data on the measurements of
the speed of light. His finding, much to his astonishment, showed a
clear and distinct pattern of decay with the passage of time.
Upon this amazing result, Setterfield went on to determine the
best curve to fit the observed light-speed measurements.
Of all the decay curves, one stood out clearly as the best.
That curve would make the speed of light approach infinity at around 4000 B.C.
The earth's magnetic field has been observed for at least 135 years.
There is no observed indication that it is a sine curve.
Instead it's been the typical exponential curve that any half
life function would have. The current half life of the magnetic
field is 1400 years. This would have made the earth a magnetic star
within 10 thousand years.
Setting the Standard for Scientific Model
Let's now take a quick look at problems in the evolution theory.
The purpose is to demonstrate that much can be
unanswered and require big leaps of faith yet still be considered
a scientific theory suitable for instruction in our schools.
Geology Standard
We have rocks dated by the presents of index fossils and fossils
dated by the surrounding rocks. No where in the world does the
geologic column exist completely.
In Arizona and Rhodesia there have been found dinosaur pictographs
drawn on cave or canyon walls by man. Pottery has been found
with etchings of five-toed llamas on it. In Utah, fossils of
several trilobites have been found in the fossilized, sandaled
footprint of a man.
How do you account for the discovery of living organisms whose
fossils are an index fossil? Why are there no fossils
of intermediate forms of organisms? How do you account for
Equus nevadenis and Equus occidentalis (modern-day horses) being
found in the same fossil stratum as Eohippus (earliest member
of the horse evolution series)?
Biology Standard
In biology many organisms are hard to explain in the evolution theory.
How did the human eye evolve?
How did the sea slug evolve to handle the stinging cells of anemones?
How does co-adaptation evolve?
How did the bombardier beetle evolve?
How does the lesser whitethroated warbler young birds know where to
migrate to rejoin their parents?
How did insects evolve into flying invertebrates?
Where did organisms learn to imitate others?
How likely is independent convergence in organisms on widely ancestral
organisms within the timeframe of evolution?
Why does a very successful caterpillar turn into a butterfly?
How did the Surinam toad evolve its unique form of carrying eggs on her back?
Anthropology Standard
In anthropology, we have the "Nebraska Man", "Java Ape-Man",
"Piltdown Man", and the "Neanderthal Man" which all have been proven
to be very fragmentary at best.
The "Nebraska Man" was found to be another species (extinct pig).
The "Piltdown Man" was a hoax.
The "Neanderthal Man" is now classified as Homo sapiens.
Charles Darwin's Own Words
If evolution theory is not a leap of faith then what did Darwin
mean by "enough to stagger anyone"?
Did the bombardier beetle or the Surinam toad break down Darwin's theory?
Does co-adaptation violate natural selection?
Does the fossil record make Darwin's views truly fatal?
Charles Darwin:
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree ... The
belief that an organ as perfect as the eye could have formed by
natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone."
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one
species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species,
it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced
through natural selection."
"We have seen in the last chapter that whole groups of species
sometimes falsely appear to have abruptly developed; and I have
attempted to give an explanation of this fact, which if true would
be fatal to my views."
Summary
I did not even begin to expound on the complex wonders of modern
genetics and other fascinating issues in the debate of
evolution vs creation. Yet, I believe I demonstrated that
the creation theory is consistent with the laws of nature and the
fossil record. Furthermore, there exists much evidence that the earth
is relatively young. Only the creation theory can explain this, if true.
The evolution theory has considerable problems in geology, biology and
anthropology. Darwin's own words indicates a leap of faith
is necessary to believe evolution. I conclude that I have
demonstrated that the creation model is no more a leap of faith as a
scientific theory than evolution. Which theory you
choose to believe is your own choice and is outside the scope of
this discussion.