BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: CREATIONISM VS EVOLUTIONISM, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF A RECENTLY CREATED UNIVERSE

CREATIONISM VS EVOLUTION

A) ONLY TWO POSITIONS TO CHOOSE FROM: CREATIONISM OR EVOLUTION - BUT ONLY ONE IS LOGICAL

It's easy to be an atheist when you don't stop and think seriously about where everything came from. Many scientists say that nature is all there is, and it came from the Big Bang. But, they mostly don't say where it came from. Some say it came from 'nothing.' Others reject that, saying it came from prior events, but they don't say where they came from. So, others say they came from an infinite / eternal series of prior events, or, we don't know.

Well, these cosmogonies are not observable, so, they are not real science. Worse, they are logically impossible; nothing can't be or do anything, and, infinite causal regress is a logical fallacy. So, they are really just irrationality dressed up in a lab coat.

Now, we observe that nature is a series of dependent material events, so every series / event has a beginning, so, we know nature began, so, 'prior' to that nature did not exist, so, it could not have begun itself. Thus, nature would never have come to exist unless some 'whatever' exists. There is more to reality than nature, and so, naturalism is false.

Now, to solve regress, what does' whatever' logically and ultimately have to be? Wholly independent, beginningless, non series / event, nonmaterial, all powerful, and agential. As such, unlike everything else, there is nothing about 'whatever" which could or needs to begin in order for it to exist.

Therefore, 'whatever' has necessarily eternally existed and thus could not have come from anywhere.

So, are 'god(s) - polytheistic gods aren't because they are codependent and have their own regress issues. Similarly, pantheistic gods aren't because they are tied to nature. But, a supernatural monotheistic God is a perfect God

Suppressing this sound truth without an equally workable or better solution is often not the result of reason, but of metaphysical bigotry and/or rebellion.

Now, given that our five human senses and science can't perceive anything beyond nature, how can we know this supernatural God? Well, a few religions speak of such a God, but, talk is cheap. Much like science can't show you how nature or life began, so too is any religion that can't show you God's supernatural power. Unlike them, Jesus can deliver. Only He has paid what we owe, rose from the dead, lives, and has proved it to millions of people for thousands of years by showing them some of the same kinds of supernatural wonders and miracles described in the Bible. Your observing such things with your own eyes is far more proof, far more real, far more beautiful and better than anything the peddlers of naturalism, atheism, preBangs, abiogenesis, macroevolution, other religions, philosophies, drugs, alcohol, Hollywood, hedonism, other sins and the devil can show you.

Dr. Don R. Patton states, video tape entitled 'CREATION/EVOLUTION', sessions 1 & 2, 'What is Creation Science?'

"When we study origins we find that there are two competing ideas, creation and evolution... Philosophically, there are only two ideas...

COLIN PATTERSON, British Museum (Natural History): 'This theory [evolution] has only one main competitor, creation theory, though there are different stories of how the Creator went about His work.' EVOLUTION, p. 148

NILES ELDRIDGE, American Museum of Natural History, 'Indeed, the only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation.' TIME FRAMES, 1985, p. 240.

D. J. FUTUYMA, 'Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species from some process of modifications. If they did appear in a full developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.' SCIENCE ON TRIAL, 1983, p. 169"

B) BOTH IDEAS HAVE RELIGIOUS IMPLICATIONS

[Patton, Ibid]

"But then we're told sometimes that in the Science classroom you can only have Evolution because that's scientific whereas Creation is religious... Both of them have very serious and religious implications..."

[Quotations taken from additional notes accompanying Dr. Patton's video tapes]:

"SIR JULIAN HUXLEY, 'In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created; it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion.', EVOLUTION AFTER DARWIN, Vol. 3, p. 253...

HUXLEY: 'Membership Brochure [Re: Humanism organization] 'I use the word 'humanist' to mean someone who believes that man is just as much a natural phenomenon as an animal or plant; that his body, mind and soul were not supernaturally created but are products of evolution and that he is not under the control or guidance of any supernatural being or beings, but has to rely on himself and his own powers.'

This is obviously a belief statement... which has religious implications....

ERNST MAYR, 'The publication in 1859 of the Origin of Species signified the end of an automatic acceptance of the god-given nature of human morality. ...Evolution does not give us a complete set of ethical norms such as the Ten Commandments, yet an understanding of evolution gives us a world view that can serve as a sound basis for the development of an ethical system...' TOWARD A NEW PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY, Harvard Univ. Press, 1988, pp. 75, 89."

[Patton, Ibid.]

"[So] Evolution is [presented here as] the basis for an ethical system. It's promoted by survival of the fittest, power makes right, the struggle for survival... [So evolution] does have religious implications...

C) DEFINING TERMS IS CRITICAL IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE TRUTH ABOUT ORIGINS

1) VARIATION WITHIN A SPECIES IS NOT THE SAME AS EVOLUTION

[Patton's videos and notes, Ibid]:

"G. A. KERKUT, 'There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the 'Special Theory of Evolution' and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments.'

Now he's talking about what we would call normally 'variation' - 'horizontal variation.' He [Kerkut] calls it the Special Theory of Evolution'. And yes that [kind of variation] can be demonstrated by experiments... Things that [one would call] horizontal variation are called new species. [However] they're the same kind... as that which was there in the beginning but we see variation...

KERKUT,

'On the other hand there is a theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the 'General Theory of Evolution.' IMPLICATIONS OF EVOLUTION, p. 155.

Now that's a different idea entirely. Unfortunately, we find in much of the argumentation, people will use the special theory in their arguments but then switch to the general theory in their conclusions.... The real issue is a change from one kind to another kind. [For example, we would] see the ameba changing to the shark changing to the monkey changing to the man. And that's not variation, that's change from one kind to another kind. Likewise we see various types of monkeys and various types of people... That's predicted... when we study... [individuals from the same] kind.... In addition to the [study of the theory of] change from one kind to another kind, we also involve the idea of origin from a common source, that is all coming from the same thing...

THEODOSIUS DOBZHANSKY in the Encyclopedia Americana, defining evolution says, 'Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments... Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life.' Science, vol. 155, p. 409. 'evolution from primordial life, through unicellular and multicellular organisms, invertebrate, and vertebrate animals, to man....' Encyclopedia Americana

That is the picture, then, the issue, not simple variation. Unfortunately, much of the argumentation is simple variation and it does not relate to the subject of whether we all came from a common origin or whether there was a change from one kind to another kind; unless we assume that these small changes add up [to a new kind]. And that's really what's done; and [this] forms the conclusions of a great many people...

One person says, 'I see evolution in the lab everyday.' The other says, 'Evolution is unobservable.' One of them is talking about special evolution, the other is talking about general evolution. One of them says, 'I see all kinds of variation, the other one says, 'But we don't see this change from one kind to a totally different kind.'..."

2) SCIENCE'S DEFINITION OF DIFFERENT SPECIES DOES NOT ALWAYS REFLECT REALITY

[Acts & Facts, INSTITUTE for CREATION RESEARCH, El Cajon, Ca, Vol. 28 No. 4 April 1999), p. 3, ICR RESEARCH Hybridization Studies]:

The definition of a species is a population of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. In the wild, segments of a population may be separated by physical barriers or behavioral changes which can cause varieties no longer to interbreed. Taxonomists will then call the two separated populations different species, even though if circumstances changed they would still be able to interbreed. When and if circumstances change, naturally or artificially, the two separated species may begin to interbreed again.

While doing a literature review for her graduate thesis, recent ICR graduate, Wendy Billock, discovered many recorded hybridizations in captive primates. Her thesis was on the behavior in captivity of drills, Mandrillus leucophaeous. Drills belong to the same genus as the more colorful mandrills, Mandrillus sphinx, the latter being much more popular in zoos. It is not too surprising that drill/mandrill hybrids have been born in captivity, considering their morphologic and behavioral similarities. They have even been backcrossed successfully, which by definition would place them in the same species. Even more surprising is the number of hybridizations that have take place outside of the genus Mandrillus.

Assuming that mandrills and drills could be placed in the same species, another literature search was done to find all of the recorded hybridizations of primates with either M leucophaeous or M. sphinix. Within the Cercopithecoidea family, seven separate species (from three different genera) have hybridized directly with either the drill or mandrill. Those three genera (Macaca, Papio, and Cercocebus) that have interbred with Mandrillus have also hybridized with another four genera. Altogether, this list includes 19 separate species including mangabegys, guenons, macaques, and baboons, that have hybridized with one or more species within the Cercopithecoidea family.

Creationists have long suspected that species classifications were artificial and that a higher ranking such as genus or family could be used to best represent the original created kinds. This study on primates (and a cursory study on other animals) tend to push the definition of 'kind' to this level. In the case of baboons, at least, the created kind may have been a Cercopithecine type baboon from which these 19+ species have diversified. These 19 species could better be defined as varieties within a single interbreeding species, rather than 19 species and 7 genera within a single family.

With the current trend in maintaining as many separate 'species' as possible, it is unlikely that any hybridization tests will be done between drills and mandrills. Unfortunately, this process of forced separation is endangering the animals. Perhaps this issue should be readdressed to determine if hybrid vigor could help keep the drills from becoming extinct in the next decade or two."

D) SCIENTIFIC PROOF DEMANDS OBSERVABILITY, REPEATABILITY, EXPERIMENTABILITY AND FALSIFIABILITY

[Patton, Ibid.]

'''What does it mean to prove something scientifically? There are some people... ... that is leading evolutionists who believe in evolution, who would say that we cannot and have not proved it scientifically and that those arguments used to prove [it] scientifically don't really do so. Note the statement by Colin Patterson as he's talking primarily about natural selection. He says, "Turning now to the second aspect of the theory that natural selection is the cause of evolution, many critics have held that this is not scientific because the expression, 'survival of the fittest', makes no predictions except what survives is fit. And so it's tautologous or an empty repetition of words. For example, if we were to ask, 'Which are the fittest?' One answer might be, 'Those that survive.' So that the survival of the fittest means only the survival of the survivors. In this sense, natural selection is not a scientific theory but a truism.'''

And that is his position. That technically cannot be called scientific. And Colin Patterson is the author.... of one of the textbooks used throughout the world.... [entitled] 'Evolution'... that [teaches] on that subject. And [this textbook is] a representative and firm believer [in evolution].

[So] how do we know what's scientific and what isn't? There are four basic... criteria that are used in order to prove something scientifically... The first is observation, then experimentation, reproduction and falsification... These four elements are necessary in order to say that an... hypothesis... is proved scientifically...

Do we observe evolution?....

Notice the statement by G. Lenyard Stebbins, a major evolutionist in our country. He says, 'The reason that the major steps of evolution have never been observed is that they required millions of years to be completed.'

["PROCESS OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION", P. 1.]

Likewise, Stephen Gould, perhaps the best known evolutionist in our country, says, 'Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of human history.'

[STEPHEN JAY GOULD, Harvard, Discover, May, 1981, p. 36]

But that's true not only in the living world, we find it also true in the fossil world. Notice again from Jay Gould writing in Natural History, he says, 'The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists, ....we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.'

[STEPHEN JAY GOULD, Harvard, Natural History, Vol. 86]

Seeing, observing, you see, is what Science is.

D.B. Kitts, another.... prolific writer in the journals on evolution writing, in the journal of Evolution, says, 'Despite the promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists,... ' [DAVID B. KITTS, Univ of Okl., Evolution, Vol. 28, p.467]

And we go to the next element of proof, that is, of experiment and repeatability. Notice the statement by Theodosius Dobzhansky, another very famous American evolutionist, writing in American Scientist. He says, 'These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible...

[Man evolved one time, he says, from the australopithecine. And it's unrepeatable]

...the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter.'

[THEODOSIUS DOBZHANSKY, American Scientist, Vol.45, p. 388]

Unrepeatable: outside the realm of experimentation by the nature of the subject itself. Unobservable... Not repeatable... Not subject to experimentation. The only element that's left is falsifiability. Consider a statement made by Stephen Gould in the publication Discover, May '81: Regarding this, he says,...

'Philosopher Karl Popper has agreed for decades that the primary criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.' [STEPHEN JAY GOULD, Discover, May, 1981]

Now, the idea is theoretical testing. This may be unfamiliar to most people, but scientists use this as a primary criterion. And if you can set up a test so that if this happens it's proved, if this happens it's falsified, then you have something that can be tested scientifically as falsifiable. And if you can't test it, then it's not really science. In that connection, notice the statement by Paul Ehrlich, the author of 'The Population Bomb', been on Johnny Carson a number of times, writing in Nature, says, 'Our theory of evolution has become one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations...

[Now he's not recommending it here. He's saying it can't be tested]

It is thus outside empirical science, but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it.'

[PAUL EHRLICH, Nature, Vol. 214, p. 352]

And so when we look at the four criteria of science, we find that it [evolution] is not observable and it's not repeatable, [it's] not subject to experimentation and it is unfalsifiable. Now when we say it's unfalsifiable [we] say that is true about much of the argumentation. [We] do not think it's true about the entire theory.... It's true regarding natural selection, survival of the fittest - those are tautologies that are not falsifiable or testable... In other areas as we'll see as we proceed.... it has been falsified...

Darwin actually suggested one way in which it could be falsified. He says that if you could point out one area where... elements would be so complex that they could not naturally develop, then we would have that which would break down which his theory would not explain. Notice from his book, Origin of Species on page 183:

'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.'

Gradually, step by step, it has to break down. And if there is something that we can show that couldn't have developed that way, then he acknowledges that there is a serious problem. But when you look at the four elements again, observation, experimentation, reproduction, [falsifiability]; as we have seen from these leading scientists... [the proof or disproof of evolution is largely] outside the technical realm of science...

[Compare a quotation included in Dr. Patton's notes from Stephen Jay Gould, SCIENCE IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, 1978, p. 344]:

'No myth deserves a more emphatic death than the idea that science is an inherently impartial and objective enterprise; ...Yet it continues to thrive among working scientists because it serves us so well... It also provides the rationale for America's scientific priesthood: The National Academy of Sciences.']

However, that does not tell us that we cannot study these matters scientifically. We can't prove it scientifically... What's true... of evolution... is also true of creation. You can't observe creation, you can't repeat it. You don't perform experiments with it. And while it [evolution] may be falsifiable in some areas, basically [it] is not [falsifiable overall]... [So] neither can be proved [scientifically]... But they can be investigated scientifically and when we are dealing in science with items that cannot be observed, cannot be repeated, you cannot perform experimentations [on them], then we deal with them under the concept of models... Basically, [a model] is an idea, an hypothesis that we set forth and then compare it with what we see in the living world... around us to see if the facts fit the model.... But both evolution and creation... ...can be evaluated scientifically... Invariably, when we look at the evidence from anthropology and geology, from physical science, from paleontology...

One after another line up on the side of creation - just looking at the empirical evidence"

II) SCRIPTURAL TESTIMONY & PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF A RECENT CREATION

A) SCRIPTURAL TESTIMONY & PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM THE UNIVERSE

1) SCRIPTURAL TESTIMONY OF A RECENTLY CREATED UNIVERSE:

GENESIS CHAPTER ONE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

~~~gentc.htm#1

[GEN 1:1]:

I) GOD IS A SOLE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE

A) [PS 19:1]

B) [REV 4:11]

C) [HEB 11:3]