CREATION IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT
The NAS
repeats the evolutionists' classic claim and suggests that creationism
is not a scientific explanation (Science and Creationism,
p. ix). The fact is, however, that creationism is very definitely
supported by scientific findings, especially at the present time.
In order to see whether a theory is scientific,
its claims must be tested by observation and experiment, and the results
must be shown to be compatible with those claims. The explanation
that living things are created with an intelligent design can be tested
in precisely this scientific manner. What emerges from these tests
is the fact that living things and the whole universe were created.
We should also make clear that any unprejudiced
person who is capable of thinking freely, and who is not fanatically
devoted to a particular ideology, can easily see that the entire universe
and all living things were created with a flawless design. They are
clearly the work of a Creator Who possesses infinite power and intelligence.
To see this, it is sufficient for anyone to consider his own body,
or a single flower in his home, or the air he breathes. However, we
feel the need here to set out some of the proofs that living things
were created in accordance with an intelligent design, in the hope
that it will assist those people who are fanatically devoted to the
theory of evolution to think and use their powers of reason.
1. Living things did not evolve from
one another in stages and through random processes, but were created
at a single moment, together with their particular body plans.
The most certain way of testing the truth
set out here is by means of the fossil record, which definitively
confirms the creation account. The life forms in the layers of the
Earth emerge fully formed, suddenly, and with all their individual
features. The Cambrian explosion, which took place some 550 million
years ago, is one of the clearest proofs that living things are created.
The 100 or so phyla in these strata emerge all of a sudden, with no
evolutionary ancestors below them in the fossil record. The sudden
appearance of life forms belonging to 100 different phyla, on an Earth
in which there had only been single-celled and a few simple multi-celled
creatures, and the fact that they possessed very different and exceedingly
complex organs and systems, is of course evidence of an intelligent
design, and thus of creation. The reason why the NAS authors neglect
to refer to the Cambrian explosion even once throughout their book
is their desire to conceal these facts.
 |
2. The complex structures and systems
in living things cannot have come about by random natural mechanisms.
Another proof that living things are
created is the complex structures and systems that can only be explained
by intelligent design. Many organs and structures-such as the cell,
the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting system, proteins, the
brain, and the eye-all possess an extraordinary design and irreducible
complexity. To claim that these systems came into being from unconscious,
inanimate matter and as the result of chance natural events is even
less logical than claiming that the video or television in your home
came into being from a pile of scrap caused by an earthquake. If there
is a complex, meaningful design somewhere, which cannot be accounted
for by unconscious effects, then that means there is an intelligent
power which brought that design into being. This much is self-evident.
One of the irrational objections which
evolutionists put forward in order to deny this obvious truth is the
question of how design is to be identified. The answer to this is
very clear. First and foremost, common sense shows us the way here.
For instance, imagine you were shipwrecked on an unspoiled, forested
island, and believed yourself to be the first person who had ever
set foot there. Then, if you came across an automobile upon the shore,
you would not conclude that the car had come into being all by itself,
as the result of chance. Despite the fact that you had not seen anyone
else on the island, you would surely conclude that that car had been
designed and manufactured by other human beings, and placed on the
island by them. That is to say, the evidence (the car) would lead
you to understand that you were not the first rational being to visit
the island.
Regarding the question of how design
can be identified in biological structures, the scientific criteria
put forward by the mathematician William Dembski may serve as a guide.
In his book The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small
Probabilities, Dembski mathematically shows at which stage it
is impossible for a structure to be explained by chance and when the
existence of an intelligent design is beyond dispute. Evolutionists
are hopeless in the face of these criteria of Dembski's.
A mind that can understand that a camera
or a dialysis machine could not come about by chance must also
be able to understand that the eye and the kidney-which are
so much more complex-could not come about by chance, either.
|
The way out of this dilemma sought by
evolutionists is the same one we have examined elsewhere: they claim
that structures referred to as complex could actually evolve by means
of natural selection. Yet, this is a very easy claim to test. For
example, it can be observed in a laboratory whether, over thousands
of generations, a bacterium lacking flagella comes to develop these
irreducibly complex structures when exposed to mutations. If, as the
result of this experiment, flagella appear, the claim that chance
and natural selection can lead to irreducibly complex structures will
be meaningful. Even the appearance of a single new protein in that
bacterium would be chalked up as a success for evolutionists. Yet,
no experiment has ever produced such a result. In fact, to conduct
such an experiment would be as futile as observing a pile of scrap
for a million years to see whether a jet airplane will emerge.
In fact, we are witnessing the collapse
of this strange logic, which is unable to see the most obvious facts
due to a fanatical devotion to materialist philosophy. If a person
sees a note reading "I SHALL BE HOME AT 10" on the table when he enters
a room, he will not imagine that the note was written by chance-say,
by the wind blowing through the window and knocking over a bottle
of ink. He will be sure that it was written by his wife or children.
There is no need for an investigation using scientific methods here.
The things that can come into being of their own accord and the things
that cannot-that is, the things that are and are not the work of intelligent
design-are in fact quite obvious. For instance, if you are walking
in a forest and notice that a tree has fallen over, you will think
that it fell over by itself or else was pushed over by the wind or
some other force. However, if only the trees to the right of the footpath
have been knocked over, you will realize that there has been intelligent
design here, and that intelligent beings have come here and felled
the trees one by one, according to a plan.
Therefore, let us consider living things
and creation. If we learn that, at a time when there was not even
one living thing on the Earth-when the Earth consisted only of inanimate
soil, rocks, minerals, and sand-if under these conditions a cell no
less complex than a city suddenly sprang into existence, this will
prove that it was created by a force possessed of consciousness and
intelligence. The same mind which knows that a camera cannot come
into being by chance can also see that the eye-which was the model
for the camera and which possesses a far more flawless design-cannot
have come into being by chance, either. A mind which knows that a
dialysis machine cannot be the work of chance-that such a machine
is designed, produced, assembled, and used by doctors, engineers,
and technicians-can also understand that the kidneys-which were used
as the model for the dialysis machine, but which are much more efficient
and adaptable than it is, and which have a far greater capacity than
the machine despite their much smaller size-cannot be the work of
chance, either. A mind which knows that thousands of intelligent,
educated, experienced, and talented engineers, technicians, programmers,
and designers joined forces to produce a computer can also see that
the human brain-with a complexity and abilities thousands of times
greater than a computer's-could not be the work of chance, either.
Those who are blind to these evident
truths have slavishly devoted themselves to materialism and Darwinism,
as if to a pagan religion. In order not to lose their materialist
worldviews, evolutionists reject out of hand the ideas of all those
who seek to offer a non-material explanation of the world, life, and
the laws of nature, without even listening to what they have to say.
It is clear that the NAS authors and other evolutionists who criticize
the truth of creation have never thought about creation or examined
their own claims. Their only aim is to hold onto their ideology, which
the words they speak and write out of their anxiety to do so make
abundantly clear.
Returning to the above example, we can
draw an analogy to illustrate the peculiar position in which evolutionists
finds themselves. As you may recall, we earlier described how if you
believed you were the first human being to set foot on a deserted
island, you would naturally understand that other people had been
there before you as soon as you came across an automobile. But what
if you were a person who was extraordinarily and doggedly convinced
that he was indeed the first person on that island? In that case,
you would have to account for the presence of the car, although none
of the explanations you came up with would be anything more than nonsense.
You might persist in your illogicality, even to the extent of claiming
that the car had been carried to the island from the nearest piece
of dry land by a storm, or else that over millions of years storms
had brought together sticks and twigs, animal skins and bones, out
of which the car had emerged. You might spend your entire life in
coming up with theories in an attempt to prove that you were the first
person on the island, and that the car had not been brought there
by someone else. However, close attention would reveal that your true
aim was not to discover the truth, but rather to defend the "fixation"
under which you were laboring. In other words, you would be ignoring
what the evidence plainly showed you, in order to be able to continue
believing as you chose.
Evolutionists are no less nonsensically
and illogically stubborn and bigoted. Their aim is not to discover the
true origin of life, but to keep the only ideology in their lives-materialism-alive.
That is why they fail to see the most obvious truths, or, if they do
see them, why they hide and distort them. The NAS booklet is the clearest
example of this.
WHY EVIDENCE AGAINST DARWINISM SHOULD
BE IN THE TEXTBOOKS
In their booklet, the NAS authors claim
that creationism should not be taught in schools because it is not
scientific, but rather linked to religious belief. As has been made
clear in the preceding pages, however, creationism is a fact backed
up by the scientific evidence, and can of course be included in science
curricula. For instance, the intelligent design in the cell, proteins,
the brain, and the communication systems between cells can be taught
in biology lessons.
In schools in the US and many other countries,
the theory of evolution is put forward as the only explanation of
the origin of life and as a scientific fact. However, this is now
known not to be the case. As we have seen in this book, there is not
one scientific proof of the theory of evolution. Therefore, if students
are to be taught theories that explain the origin of life, then the
fact of creation should be included among them. In addition, it must
be made clear that the theory of evolution cannot account for life
on Earth, and students should be taught about the scientific evidence
against the theory. Otherwise, students will be condemned to hearing
about a theory that is imposed by a one-sided and ideological system.
It is the popular reaction against this
dogmatic Darwinist order that lies at the heart of the debate on the
place of evolution in the science curriculum in America.
Until recently, criticizing Darwinism
meant risking a severe backlash. Teachers who criticized Darwinism
were removed from their posts, scientists' papers were not published
in scientific journals, and a fierce negative propaganda campaign
was waged against such people in the media. Yet, as the scientific
evidence against Darwinism began to increase in quantity at a great
speed, criticisms of Darwinism started to attract more support and
have more influence. One outcome of this was the effect on the education
system. Many scientists, politicians, teachers, and parents who realized
that the theory of evolution was not a scientific fact initiated an
intensive campaign against the one-sided teaching of the theory of
evolution. As a result of this campaign, the decision was taken to
allow the evidence contrary to Darwinism in schools in the states
of Georgia and Ohio. The first decision came from Georgia, one of
the states in the southeast of the USA. ABC News reported the story
in these terms on its website:
Supporters, including
high school junior Michael Gray, said the board's choice encouraged
academic freedom. "I had to do a term paper about evolution and there
were just things that I could disprove or have alternate reasons for,"
said Gray, who attends Pope High School. "I want my brother and sister
to be given the option and not told it's the absolute truth."1
Darwinist circles rushed to battle stations
in the face of this decision. The interesting thing here is that instead
of waging an intellectual struggle, evolutionists resorted to legal
means instead. According to ABC News, Barry Lynn, a board member of
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said that they
would take Cobb County school board to court. Thus, Lynn employed
the same method as that used by the Inquisition in the Middle Ages:
he attempted to suppress a scientific opinion by judicial means.
The Inquisition failed to maintain its
dogmas-such as the Ptolemaic model of the universe-and scientific
discoveries won the day. In the same way, Darwinist circles will fail
to keep the dogma known as evolution alive.
Following the state of Georgia, the Ohio
State Education Board required that students learn about the evidence
against the theory of evolution. An article by John G. West, of the
Discovery Institute founded in Seattle, a body which supports work
critical of Darwinism, described the collapse of Darwinism and the
fanaticism and primitive tactics of its proponents:
After months of debate, the Ohio State
Board of Education unanimously adopted science standards on Dec. 10
that require Ohio students to know "how scientists continue to investigate
and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."
Ohio thus becomes the first state to
mandate that students learn not only scientific evidence that supports
Darwin's theory, but also scientific evidence critical of it… Ohio
students will need to know about scientific criticisms of Darwin's
theory in order to pass graduation tests required for a high-school
diploma.
Ohio is not the only place where public
officials are broadening the curriculum to include scientific criticisms
of evolution. In September, the Cobb County School District in Georgia,
one of the largest suburban school districts in the nation, adopted
a policy encouraging teachers to discuss "disputed views" about evolution
as part of a "balanced education." And last year, Congress in the
conference report to the landmark No Child Left Behind Act urged schools
to inform students of "the full range of scientific views" when covering
controversial scientific topics "such as biological evolution."
After years of being marginalized, critics
of Darwin's theory seem to be gaining ground. What is going on? And
why now?
Two developments have been paramount.
First, there has been growing public
recognition of the shoddy way evolution is actually taught in many
schools. Thanks to the book Icons of Evolution by biologist
Jonathan Wells, more people know about how biology textbooks perpetuate
discredited "icons" of evolution that many biologists no longer accept
as good science. Embryo drawings purporting to prove Darwin's theory
of common ancestry continue to appear in many textbooks despite the
embarrassing fact that they have been exposed as fakes originally
concocted by 19th-century German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel. Textbooks,
likewise, continue to showcase microevolution in peppered moths as
evidence for Darwin's mechanism of natural selection, even though
the underlying research is now questioned by many biologists.
When not offering students bogus science,
the textbooks ignore genuine and often heated scientific disagreements
over evolutionary theory. Few students ever learn, for example, about
the vigorous debates surrounding the Cambrian explosion, a huge burst
in the complexity of living things more than 500 million years ago
that seems to outstrip the known capacity of natural selection to
produce biological change.
Teachers who do inform students about
some of Darwinism's unresolved problems often face persecution by
what can only be termed the Darwinian thought police. In Washington
state, a well-respected biology teacher who wanted to tell students
about scientific debates over things like Haeckel's embryos and the
peppered moth was ultimately driven from his school district by local
Darwinists…
A second development fueling recent gains
by Darwin's critics has been the demise of an old stereotype.
