Download Creation Evolution - Ponatahi Christian School

Content Outline
This intention of this article is to inform the reader what is taught at this school. The intention is not
necessarily a comprehensive defence of each point.
1) Introduction
2) Commonly accepted science we believe in
3) Commonly accepted “science” we do not believe in
4) Natural Selection, as taught in the school
5) What about the layers of old rocks in the geological column?
6) What about the fossils?
7) What about dinosaurs?
8) What about flightless birds?
9) What about the archaeopteryx (the “missing link” between reptiles and birds)?
10) What about the Grand Canyon?
11) Where did all the water come from for a global flood?
12) What about continental drift?
13) Could all of the animals fit on the ark?
14) What about DNA evidence linking us to chimpanzees?
15) What about ape-men?
16) What about the ice age(s)?
17) What about the light from distant stars?
18) What about the background radiation in the universe left over from the Big Bang?
19) Why do so many good scientists and teachers believe in evolution?
20) Limitations of Science
21) Should religion stay out of science?
22) Is the Bible a scientific textbook?
23) How can we trust the Bible when there are so many versions?
24) Why is it that a loving Creator allows so much misery in this world?
25) Is it possible that God could have used evolution as a process to develop life as it is today?
1
26) Creation Science at Ponatahi Christian School
27) The Social Consequences of Evolution Teaching
28) Priorities
29) External link:
1) Introduction
It is important that children and adults are clear that there is one universal truth. There can only be
one truthful explanation for origins which means that all other explanations are wrong. Truth is
truth. Biblical truth, scientific truth, mathematical truth, and historical truth are in harmony. Truth
can never contradict truth. We do not have to be afraid of history or science if rightly understood.
True science is our friend, it is the manifestation of God’s wisdom. Design demands a Designer.
Creation demands a Creator, and it is not feasible that a Creator would not communicate to us who
He is. We are privileged to have the great Creator’s communication to us in our homes and school:
The Holy Word of God; the Bible. In this we can learn about the Creator, our relationship to the
Creator, and how that relationship can be enhanced. We can also learn things which science is too
limited to teach us (see point 20, below).
2) Commonly accepted science we believe in
We believe in all the experimentally verifiable laws of science. We also teach that the laws of
physics and chemistry are purposely designed by the Creator to support life. If the known physical
constants of the universe are slightly different, or the angle in a water molecule was slightly
different, or the chemical laws of equilibria, etc, are any different then life would be impossible.
(Imagine a universe without gravity for example.) Even something as simple as burning wood in a
controlled campfire requires several laws of physics and chemistry to be just right, and several
conditions on planet Earth to be just right also. This paradox is a puzzle to evolutionists who base
everything on chance, but not to the creationist who believe that even something as simple as
controlled fire, and something more complex such as life, is God’s design. The unproven and
unprovable theory of the existence of millions of universes is based solely on trying to explain this
paradox. If there are millions of universes is has to be just right somewhere! (We don’t subscribe to
this.)
This means that we believe in the overwhelming majority of science in the NZ curriculum and teach
it accordingly, and we feel privileged to be part of the NZ education system. Our students have
consistently scored above the national average in all external science exams, including biology.
In the area of biology we believe in natural selection, genetic drift, speciation, and adaptive
radiation. We believe that God has designed these processes to enable living things to change
slightly, within their kind, to enhance population health in new or changing environments. These
2
processes are all re-arrangements, frequency shifts, and net losses of genetic information which is
already present.
3) Commonly accepted “science” we do not believe in
We do not believe that it is possible for non-living chemicals to arrange themselves into living things.
Life is far too complex, the laws of chemistry go the wrong direction for protein structures or DNA
bases to form long sequences outside of a living cell (eg: hydrolysis of peptides), and the laws of
probability make this to be incomprehensible and a blind faith contrary to our best knowledge. But
it must have happened because we are here says the evolutionist. We respond: It is easier to believe
in a tornado ripping through a junk yard and assembling a jumbo jet. Yet single living cell is more
complex than a jumbo jet – it more closely resembles a busy city of a million people complete with
factories, transport links, storage depots, control mechanisms, and construction blue-prints. If life
can come from non-life then repeat it in a laboratory! Even the most simple life (eg: bacteria) must
essentially have the same DNA control and replication mechanisms as advanced life (us).
Neither do we believe that genetic information can increase, or ever has increased, in complexity
over time. New genetic information (eg: a random mutation) must be useful to the carrier to
eventually be prevalent in the population (natural selection is on the creationist side), and it must
add genetic information to support evolution theory. Such mutations are unknown to science. The
very small number of known useful mutations, and the best examples in textbooks, all switch off or
damage a pre-existing metabolic pathway. They do not add additional, useful information. Also, if
the environmental condition which caused the mutation to be useful (eg: malaria for sickle-cell
anaemia, antibiotics for bacteria) is removed then the mutation is discovered to be harmful and the
“useful” mutation is selected against by natural selection.
We do not believe in the great ages of geological time. There are a huge variety of dating methods,
each with its own set of variable assumptions which can be tuned to “prove” any age. Our
understanding of natural selection and adaptive radiation works on pre-existing genes. We do not
require eons of ages to make a slow accumulation of genetic information by mutations seem
plausible. (Adaptive radiation can take place as quickly as it takes to breed a variety of coloured
populations of guinea pigs from a single pair of genetically rich parents.) Therefore we are more
inclined to select dating methods which are more consistent with each other, and do not require
unlikely assumptions (eg: “zero daughter” and “closed system” in radiometric methods), and which
do not have glaring inconsistencies (eg: rocks a few meters apart at the base of the Grand Canyon
have “dates” ranging from 500 million to 1500 million years, even when dated by the same method,
lava flows from Mt Ngarahoe known to be from the 1800s dated to be several million years old).
4) Natural Selection, as taught in the school
We teach the processes of natural selection, genetic drift, speciation, adaptive radiation, and
extinctions. These are all re-arrangements and net losses of genetic information present from
creation. There is a host of documented evidence in textbooks, which we have no dispute with, to
support these processes of minor changes within kinds, adapting to changing environments. (The
3
term “kind” is a Biblical term which is wider than the modern concept of species. Eg: the cat family
and dog family and horse family are all different “kinds” which even little children understand. It is
genetically impossible for plants or animals of different kinds to breed together – a protection which
God has placed in His creation.) We believe that genetic diversity is reduced over time through
these natural selection processes. For example all eight bear species in the world (the bear “kind”)
probably came from a single parent population of genetically rich individuals. Through migration,
natural selection, and adaptive radiation into new niches we now have the eight species (others
becoming extinct) which no longer breed with each other. However the polar bear population, for
example, has lost many genes of its ancestors and is no longer able to adapt back into the
environment its ancestors once thrived in. Similarly a population of white guinea pigs bred from a
genetically rich coloured population will never be able to adapt back to its original colours – not even
in a million years of natural selection.
We do not believe that adaptive and natural selection changes within kinds can be extrapolated to
changes from one kind of animal to another or taken to the extreme, from non-living molecules to
man. This is the ultimate in science fiction. Our students are trained to recognise how the
textbooks use examples of natural selection process within a kind (which we believe in) and use this
to “prove” molecules to man evolution (which we don’t accept). All adaptations are limited to the
“gene pool” of the genes available to the population. These genes can be re-arranged, become
more or less common, be damaged, hidden, or lost. But new genes coming into an ecosystem
which are both useful for natural selection, and which increase genetic complexity to the level of
making new protein structures are unknown to science. Hence all evolutionary processes are
limited to changes within the kind – even for millions of generations if that were possible. Some
changes can look dramatic in colour and size, but a horse remains a horse and a cat remains a cat,
knowing that the horse kind includes the range of horses, including zebras, we see today, and
similarly with the cats. Biologically a kind is similar to what scientists would call a genus. Even a five
year old knows the difference between the horse, cat, dog, and bear “families”.
5) What about the layers of old rocks in the geological column?
This is a side issue in the creation / evolution debate. We believe that evolution is impossible, even
on an infinite time scale, and that the world-wide pool of genetic diversity has been on the decline
ever since creation, and is not increasing. Natural selection on pre-existing genes can happen very
quickly in geological terms. Unlike evolutionists we do not need vast eons of time to make
evolution from molecules to man look plausible.
Nevertheless we do not accept the ages of the geological column. The current “ages” were invented
by Charles Lyell (a friend of Charles Darwin) well before modern dating methods were available, to
make evolution of molecules to man seem plausible. Our students are taught the basic assumptions
needed the common dating methods used to support Lyell’s model and how unreliable and
inconsistent they are.
Our students are also challenged to explain why there is no erosion between the pancake like layers
of rock in the geological column, why all erosion is from the top layer down, why earthquake cracks
can not be observed going through the bottom layers unless they go through the top also, and why
4
there are many fossil trees protruding through several layers claimed to be tens of millions of years
apart. It is clear that the Biblical model of a world wide flood producing layers of hydraulically
separated sediment (which students can repeat overnight with dirt in a jar of water) is a more
plausible explanation. In fact horizontal layers without erosion in between can only be formed in a
single event. And when layers like this can be found hundreds of meters thick around the world it
only confirms to us the global flood. The reader should also be aware that fossil sea shells can be
found near the top of mountain ranges all around the world. Ironically, no geologist denies that all
mountain ranges were once under water. It is only a question of when and whether they were all
under water at the same time, and the non-Christian of necessity must come up with an alternative
from the Bible. Even for New Zealand, the best geological research is that all of NZ was once under
water at the same time (NZ Geographic magazine 2008), but this can not be accepted by the
biologists.
By the way, the reader should be aware that the geological column in textbooks is not found in its
entirety, in the correct order, anywhere in the world. Most places have only 2-3 of the various
layers.
6) What about the fossils?
We have no problem with fossils. Fossils are on our side. Claims that the fossils show a gradual
transition from simple to complex life are simply not true. Have you ever noticed in evolutionary
biology textbooks how the branches in evolutionary trees often have dotted lines (at least in the
more honest books)? This indicates that the transitional form has not yet been discovered. The
fossils do not show a gradual change from less complex to more complex or a change of one kind of
animal to another, anymore that the changes in life we would notice going from the sediment in the
ocean floor to the tree tops of forests. (Ie: our position is that the fossils were buried according to
habitat.) All of the major species of animals appear suddenly in the fossil record.
There are about a dozen or so “transitional form” discovered which can be made to appear to
support evolution. But these are debated by even evolutionists. The two best, and most commonly
quoted examples of “fossil evidence” supporting evolution used in textbooks, the evolution of the
horse and whale, both have problems. Fossils of “modern horse” are found in the same layer as the
so called horse-ancestor (eohippus), and the range of horse like animals in the fossils is little
different from the range still alive today. And we have known since the 1980s that the well
promoted, so called, vestige pelvic bone, of the whale is used for muscle attachments in
reproduction. The cleverly constructed transition of “whale ancestors” has actually no transition at
all between the terrestrial (pelvic bone joining two hind limbs to the spine) and aquatic (no pelvic
bone attached to the main skeleton). Look carefully next time.
If the fossils show any pattern at all, it is in the wrong direction. Many mammals, reptiles, and
insects, are represented by bigger and stronger individuals in the fossils than what we see now. It
just so happens that they lived alongside many species which are now extinct. Fossil platypus, for
example, have teeth, but today’s platypus doesn’t. Pointing to a loss of information, not a gain.
5
We believe that most fossils were formed quickly during the global flood and were buried according
to habitat. We do not expect life from the sea floor to be buried with life from land, and we do
expect animals which can get away from rising flood waters to be buried last. We also expect to see
some exceptions as plant and animal remains are washed around and mixed up a little. And this is
exactly what we see in the fossils. The notion that at every point in the global one can dig
downwards through many habitats or ages of fossils is also wrong. Most fossil graveyards are a
single layer of one habitat only.
When museums place fossils in an order to exhibit evolution they are selective and imaginative.
Firstly, most fossils are clever (and possibly valid) extrapolations of single bones or bone fragments,
and secondly lining up all the types of dogs from little to big can be just as convincing. They don’t
tell you that often (as in the case of the horse) that many, or all, of the individuals can be found in
the same layer. Just imagine what a clever museum curator could do if the frog was extinct and
fossil tadpoles were discovered in various stages of development.
Fossils do not form in normal conditions as the carcasses get eaten or rot well before they can be
preserved. And yet there are massive fossil graveyards in huge layers of sedimentary rock in all
continents of the world, as we would expect from a global flood.
7) What about dinosaurs?
Dinosaurs have nothing directly or indirectly to do with the evolution of man. Some would try to
“prove” that evolution of molecules to man must be true because dinosaurs existed. We know that
dinosaurs existed, and we also know that they lived on this planet at the same time as man. Cave
drawings, and pictures of dinosaurs on pottery fragments are well documented. Almost every
culture in the world has oral, and sometimes written and pictured, traditions of dragons. (The word
“dinosaur” was only coined in the 1800s). They are mentioned several times in the Bible and one is
accurately described in the book of Job. Unfossilised dinosaur flesh containing blood cells, which
can not be more than a few thousand years old and probably only a few hundred years old, has been
found in Alaska. This has been well documented in evolutionary circles (but it won’t be put in kid’s
textbooks or the general media) and attempts to explain it have been both creative and amusing,
such as trying to explain the existence of blood cell structures by the action of bacteria.
8) What about flightless birds?
There have been documented cases in recent years of flying insects and a species of egret blown
onto a windy, isolated island, and losing the ability to fly through natural selection. (With adequate
food on the ground, no predators to escape from, and a large ocean to drown in, it is not hard to see
why natural selection could select against the ability to fly.) But this is a loss of genetic information,
not a gain, and therefore fits our model better than the evolutionary model. The problem is where
the wings came from in the first place!
6
We have no problem with the possibility of ancestors of flightless birds being able to fly. We believe
it is very likely with some birds such as the kakapo, although more difficult to imagine with birds like
the kiwi and penguin. But realise that flightless birds do use their wings for other purposes. An
ostrich uses it wings for raising young, to scare predators, heat control, and as a wind foil to change
direction and stop quickly. Even a kiwi appears to use its stumpy hidden vestige wing to keep the
olfactory gland (for smelling) at the end of its beak warm over night.
9) What about the archaeopteryx (the “missing link” between reptiles and birds)?
The archaeopteryx is an extinct, unusual bird. At least two fairly complete skeletons have been
found in Europe. Unlike “modern birds” it had teeth set in sockets, claws on the ends of its wings
(although the hoatzin in South America still does today), and a stronger than usual pelvic bone.
However it also had muscle attachments (skeletons can reveal a lot) consistent with strong flying
(like a raptor today), feathers, and strong talons. Modern biology textbooks picture the
archaeopteryx as an awkward flier, or even glider, which could run and climb well, as a transitional
form between reptiles and birds. This is probably the most famous fossil find in the world other
than some “ape-men”.
Firstly, evolution is very short of transitional forms so the most has to be made out of whatever can
be found. Secondly, we know by the muscle attachments and feathers that archaeopteryx was a
strong flier, making the pictures in biology texts simply deceptive. It is not a transitional form. A
true transitional form must have structures that are part way between feathers and scales, and
forelimbs which are partway between legs and wings. Everything on the archaeopteryx is fully
developed. Like the platypus it is an unusual collection of fully developed traits. Incidentally,
modern birds, have been found in the same and lower layers than archaeopteryx. Some mammals
have teeth and some don’t. Some reptiles have teeth and some don’t. Some fish and teeth and
some don’t. We don’t see any issue with a fossil bird having teeth. And again, if fossil birds had
teeth and today’s birds don’t, it is a loss, not a gain of genetic information.
Artists have creatively imagined what a true transitional form between reptiles and birds may have
looked like. Such “creatures” if they ever existed wouldn’t be able to either fly or climb or run
properly to escape predators or catch prey. Natural selection would have removed them. (Natural
selection is on our side.) The unwelcome position of the evolutionist is that every step, and every
small change, must be useful to the carrier to avoid being selected against.
10) What about the Grand Canyon?
Our understanding of the layers of rock in the Grand Canyon and fossils has been given above. But
didn’t it take millions of years for Colorado River to form the Grand Canyon?
No it didn’t. Local Indians have a legend of it being formed by a huge flood. We agree with the
Indians whose oral tradition is likely to have originated from eye witness accounts. Like our local
7
Manawatu Gorge, the height of the canyon in the center is higher than the elevation of the river
where it enters the canyon. Hence if the Colorado River formed the Grand Canyon by slow erosion it
had to begin by flowing up hill. (The same can be said of many spectacular gorges in the world.) A
much better explanation, which is confirmed by the inland geography of contributory river flows and
rock formations, is that there used to be a huge inland lake which suddenly burst through (triggered
by flood or earthquake), forming the Canyon in a matter of days or even hours. It was a lot of water
in a little time, not a little water in a lot of time. A similar, but much smaller canyon was formed as
the result of the Mt St Helens eruption in 1980 in only 24 hours. (By the way the same eruption
formed layered rock up to 20m thick from a superheated cloud of dust and ash which cooled and
settled in a matter of days.) Many of the world’s gorges could have been formed this way shortly
after the global flood when rock was soft and the waters were receding. However, the Grand
Canyon is probably more recent. The lack of delta for the Colorado River is more consistent with
our explanation than the evolutionary one.
11) Where did all the water come from for a global flood?
Firstly, God is more than capable of creating water and then destroying it, but it is unlikely He did
this. If the world’s crust is perfectly spherical there is sufficient water in the oceans to cover the
planet by a depth of approximately 3km. The Bible states that most water came from underground,
not the rain, and during the flood period the shape of the crust of the earth simply changed from a
more spherical shape to the great ocean basins we have now.
By the way, God may well have used a comet collision to trigger the global flood. Such an event
could have triggered the collapse of water vapour in the atmosphere, seismic activity to crack open
huge underground reservoirs, and a resulting meteorite shower (much colder than anything
currently on earth) may have been responsible for freezing mammoths so suddenly that their frozen
stomachs contain undigested preserved food. Any idea how long it takes to freeze the center of a
large piece of meat?
12) What about continental drift?
It can be verified by modern technology that the continents are moving at around 3cm per year.
Global earthquake and volcanism patterns are consistent with tectonic plate theory. At current sea
levels it does look as though Africa fits into South America, and so on. (Although the fit is not so
clear with only moderate changes to sea levels.) Some selected geological data does seem to
confirm that the continents were once joined. Therefore we can work out how long ago these
continents must have been joined.
Sorry, but we can’t work this out from current data as we do not know historical speeds of
continental drift. Some creation scientists have been working on a model which suggests that in the
conditions of the global flood, under the water, subducting of tectonic plates could have taken place
at the rate of several meters per second. One of the problems encountered in a lot of geological
processes is trying to measure ages by processes we observe today, assuming that these have
8
always occurred at the same rate. By the way, the current rate of global erosion would level the
great continents into the sea in only six million years, let alone time scales a hundred times this.
13) Could all of the animals fit on the ark?
Yes they could. Adaptive radiation, whereby genetically rich parents can give rise to several
different species which are slightly different, but still the same kind helps us to understand the
dispersal of animals after the flood. The Biblical term “kind” is roughly equivalent to what biologists
today call genera. (Eg: all of the dog kind which consists of domestic dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackal,
etc, belong to the same genus and needed to be represented by only one pair of animals on the ark.)
The number of genera today, plus extinct genera adds up to around 8000 at a generous count, which
means that around 16,000 individuals were needed on the ark. Surprisingly, the median size is
about the size of a rat and just over 10% of these animals are larger than a sheep. Secondly, Noah
probably had juveniles of the big species (juvenile dinosaurs are very small). To put this in
perspective, the volume required is equivalent to less than 50 standard railway stock cars, and the
volume of the ark was over ten times this, leaving lots of room for food, extra space for exercise, and
movement in cages, etc.
One pair of all the insect species in the world actually weighs less than one tonne, even at today’s
species count, and only a tiny fraction of this at the genera count. However insects are not included
in the Hebrew word translated to “animal” in the Bible and may have survived the flood as either
passengers on the animals or on floating vegetation.
14) What about DNA evidence linking us to chimpanzees?
We are indeed linked to chimpanzees – by a common Designer. Even bananas have 90% the same
DNA as chimps. Most of DNA code controls processes within the cell and are common to all living
things. As all DNA is designed by the same Designer for the same purpose, we expect it to be similar.
We agree with the evolutionist that chimps are closer to use than any other animal, but some animal
has to be, and it is not surprising that over 98% of chimp DNA is the same as ours. But take care
with similarities in the design of animals. All DNA is designed by the same designer. If the common
ancestor theory was true then we would expect the same characteristics to be found coded on the
same place on the same chromosome of the different animals. Even though our knowledge of gene
mapping is in its infancy, it is already clear that this expected pattern is regularly not the case.
The relatively new technique of using genetic similarities to determine how long ago two species or
sub-species had a common ancestor is horribly flawed. The time scale assumes a constant rate of
genetic variation. But genetic variation has slowed down dramatically over the ages as natural
selection processes reduce genetic potential. Some animals, eg: the Cheetah, now have almost no
genetic potential to vary any more to environmental changes. The genetic variation which now
takes place in genetically separated populations of the same species is almost nothing compared to
what takes place, and has taken place, when genetically rich individuals adapt into new
environmental niches.
9
15) What about ape-men? (Humanoid fossils)
All the fossils of “ape-men” that have ever been found can fit comfortable in the boot of a standard
car. Most fossils are teeth, bones, or bone fragments which are extrapolated (sometimes using good
science, but often adding a lot of “artistic licence.”) into the whole specimen. All “ape-men” fit
clearly into two catagories: extinct apes (eg: “Lucy” and the other australopithecines) or “modern
man” (eg: Neanderthals who actually had a larger brain capacity than us.) The missing link is still
missing. In Y13 biology our students examine the claims and the evidence more closely, discovering
why evolutionists are not agreed among themselves on the evolutionary pathway of man. In the
current evolutionary textbook we use, there are five “possible” pathways of evolution from apes to
men presented. Upon close examination there is not a single “ape man” fossil which is common to
all five proposals.
Artists are very clever in giving impressions. The first drawings of “Lucy” had human like feet which
has now been retracted by most evolutionists (The original fossil didn’t have feet). Artists can put
white around the eyes to make the face look human-like or hair around the face to make it look apelike depending on which suits the impression required. National Geographic artists, especially, are
notorious at this. Sometimes the entire body is extrapolated from a piece of skull or jaw bone. If
other bone fragments are found nearby then the ones which fit the case are selected to be part of
the body as well.
16) What about the ice age(s)?
We believe in an ice age in the center and north of the large northern hemisphere continents in the
centuries immediately following the global flood, before climate came back into equilibrium. There
is not much historical record of this because not many people lived in these regions. We know that
the Neanderthals (a race of “modern” humans from Europe) lived in the presence of this ice age.
These people were stocky, like Innuit, and thereby adapted for a cold climate. (Interestingly, an ice
age does not need colder winters than now. It needs cooler summers so that the melting rate in
summer is not more than the freezing rate in winter.)
17) What about the light from distant stars?
Why is that light from stars millions of light years away can be seen today if the universe is not
millions of years old? We believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old due to our belief in the
scriptures and the consistency this has with several dating methods (but not the few radiometric
methods used to support evolutionary ages.) We don’t have an issue with the size of the universe
even though it is very difficult to measure directly beyond about 100 light years. There is a thought
that the speed of light is not constant and has decayed logarithmically since creation when it was
infinite speed. Evolutionists are forced to accept a changing speed of light because Big Bang theory
doesn’t work with the current speed. (Interestingly, a faster speed of light increases the rate of
radiometric decay, but we don’t need this to explain radiometric dating, as these dating methods
10
have other, more major, problems with their assumptions.) There is also a thought among some
creationists that God created the rays of light so that man could “see” the stars immediately after
creation. We know that God can do all things, but we feel that this explanation is too “forced” and
not needed according to the best knowledge science now has of space and time.
We do not know for sure whether the speed of light has changed, but we do know that time is not
constant. Time goes at different rates according to how squashed space is. (Sounds fantastic, but
scientists have known this since the Einsteins second theory of relativity, 1915. The more we
discover how limited our understanding is, the more we can appreciate the wisdom of the Creator of
space and time.) According to Einstein’s theory, which has now been verified by modern
technology, space is squashed, and time is sped up, by gravity. According to either Big Bang theory
or the Bible (Isaiah 40:22) the universe was much smaller in its infancy. The distance across the
universe was much less and the higher density of gravity would have made time go much, much
faster relative to earth time (the earth was not part of this expanding process in the creation model
as it was created before the rest of the universe, and is too special to be part of it). Even today,
time runs much, much faster in other places in the universe where there is a high density of gravity
such as at the centre of galaxies or near black holes. (We are talking about thousands or even
millions fold.) This time dilation effect would have allowed light from the distant reaches of the
infant universe to have reached the earth, in a matter of days, relative to an earth bound observer.
18) What about the background radiation in the universe left over from the Big Bang?
The Bible states, in several places, that the universe is expanding (eg: Isaiah 40:22, 45:12, Jer 10:12,
Zech 12:1) and has done so since creation. It is still expanding at a rate that can not be explained by
natural forces as gravity should be slowing it down more. Hence the background radiation
discovered , and what causes up to 10% of the static on radios, can be explained from creation just
as easily as “Big Bang”. But creation does not have the other problems such as trying to explain or
avoid where the initial matter/energy came from and what triggered it off. The first opponents of
“Big Bang” theory were evolutionists because they were uncomfortable with the notion that the
universe had a beginning.
Big bang theory is actually fairly close to our understanding of how God created the universe. The
major differences is the time scale – even allowing for time dilation described above, the fact that
the earth was not part of the expanding universe, and the fact the God controlled and planned all
things. We believe that God created the universe out of nothing. The evolutionists now believe
that the universe created itself out of something no bigger than a pin head (this primordial “pre Big
Bang” object has got smaller over the years and is now literally a pin head away from our belief), and
some proponents of Big Bang are now theorising that even a pin head is too big and perhaps it was
nothing after all. There are also differences in consequences. The naturalistic “Big Bang” predicts
that the universe has no centre and is homogenous (evenly spread). The creationist doesn’t need
to make these or any similar predictions, but our best current knowledge is that the universe is not
11
homogenous and it does have a centre. And what is more, out of 100 billion galaxies, our galaxy is
at the centre, otherwise we could not observe this.
The earth is the only known planet with a clear atmosphere, perfect for looking out at the stars. To
a creationist it is a nice thought that God has placed us at the centre of the universe, enabling us to
look out at the glory of His creation, and to praise Him for it.
19) Why do so many good scientists and teachers believe in evolution?
Many reasons…
•
•
•
•
•
•
They have know nothing else all their life and probably never thought of the issues
mentioned in this article.
There is the fear of religion. If the only conceivable naturalistic explanation for our
existence, no matter how bad, is rejected, there are unwelcome religious consequences and
people are pushed out of their comfort zone. Hence the zeal of anti-creationists. Evolution
is driven by the fear of religion, and desire to have no higher authority than ourselves, and
the fear of judgment to come.
Research scientists must promote evolution to be granted research funding (their salary) in
all countries in the western world. Government and/or university funding would be
withheld for any research likely to discredit evolution, and more likely to be continued if the
research has extended our “knowledge” of evolution.
Science teachers at high schools and universities face discrimination, or dismissal, if they are
known to have serious scientific doubts about evolution. Scientific journals will almost
never publish an article by a known creationist.
Most scientists are genuinely unaware of the problems evolution has outside his/her
immediate field. The astronomer is unaware of the problems the biologists has, and the
palaeontologist has, or geologist has, etc. Thinking that evolution is proved beyond doubt in
the other fields, each scientist is obliged to select data and interpret results in his/her own
field which supports the evolutionary framework.
There have been some deliberate hoaxes such as Haeckel’s embryo drawings, Piltdown man
and Chinese feathered dinosaurs. (Beware of any fossil find coming out of China. The public
has a false impression as the “retraction” is never released to the media with as much hype
as the initial claim.) But overall the number of deliberate hoaxes are probably small, and in
the end have probably done more harm to evolution theory than benefit.
However the number of scientists rejecting evolution is increasing. The main point is that Darwinian
evolution can not explain the complexity which can be seen in a single cell. (Darwin himself only
knew of the cell as a blob.) In USA, today, despite one-sided indoctrination all the way through
public education, more people actually reject evolution than accept it. One of the reasons is the
increase of our knowledge, especially in the field of microbiology. Another reason is the internet
and availability of cheap DVDs has meant that the arguments presented in this article, and many
others can no longer be hidden from genuine inquiry. Up until recently public libraries and
12
education institutions in the western world (the preservers of knowledge in our society) have
deliberately prevented information being displayed which questions evolution – or at the very least
have catalogued it out of the science section.
20) Limitations of Science
Our knowledge of science is limited to observable, measureable data, and repeatable experiments.
Science, by its nature, can not prove or disprove, or explain many things, which are outside these
limitations. This includes why or how the laws of science came into existence, what happens after
this life, why things die, and why evolution has never been able to overcome aging and death. Even
some things in this life such as love, appreciation of beauty, anger, joy, and other emotions can not
be explained, let alone our relationship with God, and salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ. (Try
a natural selection theory to explain why people get embarrassed and blush – but we know that
there will be a lot of blushing on the day of judgment.) To learn about these things we need to go
outside of science. We need communication from the Creator to know these things. One of the
problems with evolution is that it tries to use science to answer a religious question, by putting the
only truthful answer outside the definition of science, and then stating that truthful answer can’t be
true because it is not science.
The Bible says that man is body and soul. Science has gone an incredible way (but still has some way
to go) to understand the body, or physical nature of man. But the activities of the soul, or spiritual
nature, such as the emotions mentioned above, is to the greater extent beyond naturalistic science.
21) Should religion stay out of science?
There are areas in which religion and science overlap. One of these areas is the origin of life. This is
unavoidable unless we want to eliminate truth from the classroom. Students at this school are
taught that truth is truth, and therefore a truthful religious explanation can never contradict a
truthful scientific one. And if one appears to contradict the other then something is wrong in our
understanding. It is science, not the Bible, which has had to change its position on many things over
the years . If anything the question of origins is a religious one, not a scientific one. Science has to
become a pseudo-religion to attempt to answer the question of origins. Eg: A belief in the unproven
or unprovable such as life coming from non-living chemicals despite the enormous odds of
probability in the “random arrangement” of DNA code needed for a single protein, and a belief that
new metabolic pathways can occur by random mutations.
Most scientists and teachers have respect for someone else’s religion and someone’s belief in the
Bible. Those who state that religion should be kept out of science are actually not trying to eliminate
religion, or even a religious alternative to evolution. What they really want to stop is scientific
reasoning to be used against evolution. When a scientific reason contrary to evolution is proposed
it is all too easy, and too cheap, to “play the religious card” and avoid the scientific problem by
saying that it is religiously motivated.
13
22) Is the Bible a scientific textbook?
No it isn’t. It is written for a higher purpose. Yet it is scientifically accurate and is consistent with
recent developments in science. After all it is written by the same Creator of the Universe who
speaks to us through science, even though science, unlike the Bible, is subject to human error.
The Bible is consistent with the water cycle (Ecc 1;7), ocean currents (Psalm 8:8), dinosaurs (Job
40:15-24), genetic code (Psalm 139: 16), electrical communication (Job 38: 35), and recent
discoveries of undersea springs (Job 38: 13). With the exception of the dinosaur, it is not possible
that the writer whom God used to write down the inspired word could have known or witnessed
what he was writing about. But the Creator, knew, and we are privileged to live in a time when
modern science has revealed these things to us.
23) How can we trust the Bible when there are so many versions?
It is sad that there are many versions of the Bible and not all can be trusted. But the different
versions are in unison on the question of the origin of life. Like evolution there are ways in which
careful study can lead to the truth, and clarity to which version in English best portrays the original
manuscripts which is the communication of the Creator of the Universe to us. At this school we
believe, and trust, that this is the King James Version. What an immense privilege it is that we may
have this communication in our hands and teach the students out of it!
24) Why is it that a loving Creator allows so much misery in this world?
The Creator is a God of love. He is also a God of justice, and wisdom, and power, and sovereignty,
and patience, and many other attributes, all of which are equal to His love. Mankind has sinned
against God, and to the greater extent we have tried to push God out of our lives, in the service of
our own desires contrary to God’s law and our conscience. God sends His judgments. In His
sovereign will he takes some away in sickness, accidents, and disasters and spares others, extending
their time of possibility for repentance and faith in the Saviour. For a person with saving faith in His
Son, death is not an enemy. If we know something in our conscience of sin, and refusing God into
our life, then we know that it is only by the Creator’s mercy that we are still spared, and that more
people are spared rather than taken away whenever there is a natural disaster.
We can push the Creator out of our lives in this life, but no-one can escape the judgment. It is not
like a sports club that we can participate or not as we choose. God, in mercy, is still extending the
gospel message. He does not take delight in death or the punishment of sin. But it will happen,
and the Bible, His message to us, predicts more “natural” disasters to come. God is a God of love.
But we reject that love by rejecting the gift of His Son who died for sinners, then we will know Him
as a God of justice. This we can not reject, because it will eventually be imposed against our will.
14
25) Is it possible that God could have used evolution as a process to develop life as it is today?
No it is not!!!
God can do all things, but He will not do anything which is unjust or dishonourable. The God of the
Bible will not, and did not, use a wasteful process of death and suffering to produce something good.
This is contrary to Scriptures, contrary to science as indicated above with many arguments, and
contrary to any reverent notion of God. This theory can only be propounded by someone who has
limited knowledge of science, a “flexible” adherence to the Bible, and who wants to marry together
two diametrically opposed systems. Sadly there are many “Christians” today who fit this description
well and who cause more embarrassment and frustration to us than the true evolutionist.
26) Creation Science at Ponatahi Christian School
This article gives an idea of what the students are taught throughout the college years at this school.
They are also taught the evolutionary explanations enabling them to answer external exam
questions. If the external exam requires a certain answer our students are trained to answer it like,
“It is believed that these fossils are found in Cambrian rock.” Such an answer must be marked
correct if it contains the intended information, and yet it is not a statement of their belief.
The students are taught to discern the evidence presented in evolutionary textbooks, especially how
observable science is cleverly, and sometimes dishonestly, extrapolated to “prove” the unprovable.
Until evolution comes up with documented evidence of useful mutations leading to increased
genetic information and new metabolic pathways, and until the evolutionist can repeat life coming
from non-living chemicals, the argument is over as far as we are concerned.
27) The Social Consequences of Evolution Teaching
If young people are taught that they are the result of astronomical, physical, chemical, and biological
accidents, without any accountability to a Creator, is it any wonder that many young people have no
purpose in life and take “survival of the fittest” into the streets and playgrounds?
At this school students are taught that God is in control of all things. God knew every individual
from before the beginning of time, and has a purpose for each one, and many assuring promises for
those who seek Him earnestly, especially while they are young.
28) Priorities
The Bible states (Proverbs 1:7) that the “Fear (awe) of God is the beginning of knowledge.” We
must start at the right place otherwise we will also be deceived. Without this awe of God no logical
scientific argument will convict the conscience, and people will continue to believe against reason of
15
life coming from non-living chemicals, and new complex metabolic pathways coming by chance, no
matter how improbable, and no matter how void the laboratory evidence. Big bang theory states
that the universe is of magnitude 1016 seconds old, but the probability of amino acids in a single
protein arranging themselves correctly by chance is one over ten to several hundred magnitudes.
The probability of DNA bases arranging themselves, by chance into the code for a single protein is
equally unlikely (evolutionists can not agree what came first – the protein for structures needed in
the cell or the DNA code for the protein). Yet the human body has 400 billion cells, each of which
has thousands of complex protein structures, and work together in a way we do not even
comprehend.
The scientific aspects of creation are important for our students, but are a distant second in
importance to the knowledge of God the Father as Creator, Covenant Maker, and Law Giver; Jesus
Christ as Creator, Redeemer and Judge; and the Holy Spirit as Creator and Sanctifier. Without a
saving knowledge of these things we will perish forever and our end will be worse than that of the
evolutionist because we have rejected a greater light. Faith is above scientific reasoning and true
faith can never be shaken by it. However, if our students are threatened by science “falsely so
called”, we can equip them to use science to defend themselves. Science is our friend, it is on our
side.
29) External link:
Much of the science in this article, and more technical information can be found at
http://creationontheweb.com
16