This week’s class presentation looks at the problems with the teachings of evolutionary theory as a means for the origin of all complex life. We will look at the evidence from a Christian worldview vs. the evidence from a secular evolutionary worldview and explore the problems associated with the incomplete, and often false, teachings in academia today concerning evolutionary theory.

Watch this week’s presentation on this topic:

Overview Notes from the presentation

A Case for Genesis

***2022: Session 4, Part One – The Problem with Evolutionary Theory***

Review

Prayer cards: Take a minute and write your name on the index card provided, and add any special prayer request you might have. Exchange cards at the end of the class this evening.

What are the twelve points to the Bible’s Big Picture (5 in the Old Testament, 7 in the New Testament)?
1.From last week’s movie, Genesis Impact, discuss one or two things that stood out to you as something you could share with others.

Session #4: Overview

Creation vs. Evolution – The Question of Origin: Genesis Chapter One
Made in the image of God – The Question of Identity and Purpose: Genesis Chapter Two (next week)

The most important questions of life can be found in the Bible, starting with Genesis…

Does God exist? The question of a Creator versus undirected processes
Where did I come from? The question of origin
Who am I and what is my purpose? The question of identity
What is wrong with the world? The problem of evil
What happens after I die? The question of eternity

Does evolutionary theory answer life’s most important questions?

“In grammar school they taught me that a frog turning into a prince was a fairy tale. In the university they taught me that a frog turning into a prince was a fact!”

– Ron Carlson, U.C. Irvine Professor and Author

I. Creation vs. Evolution – The Question of Origin: Genesis Chapter One

Where did I come from? The question of origin

The 1^st Major Historical Event: CREATION

Genesis chapter one

God created ex nihilo (from nothing) in six days and gave us an example of rest on the seventh

Non-Christian View of Origin:

Evolutionary Theory

(Neo-Darwinian Evolution—opposed to any kind of creation – Atheistic)

Evolutionists believe all complex life evolved slowly, through gradual changes, that began in an early primordial fluid.
Mutations and chance, given billions of years, allow for natural selection to choose favorable features and eliminate unfavorable ones, thus producing better and better species (survival of the fittest).

Evolution is the only science ‘theory’ that is treated as fact in all areas, yet it does not follow the highly esteemed Scientific Method that states ‘for a theory to become fact it must be observable, testable, and repeatable.’

The Oxford definition of science is: The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation, YET …

The Problem

Evolutionary theory uses philosophy, known as scientism, not empirical science.
Questions of origin require forensic science.
Evolutionary theory for the origin of life has become a faith system in itself.

Therefore, all reasonable research and subsequent interpretation of the evidence, should be allowed in the conversation, but it is not.

Biblical creation and the theory of “Intelligent Design” has by far the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence, and evidence in abundance, so why is it so quickly dismissed in the scientific community?

We must keep these things in mind when considering theories about the origin of life:

Presuppositions
- The preconceived ideas scientist hold can affect their research methods (scientism, atheism, agnosticism etc.).
- These assumptions form the current paradigms for research models – if the evidence does not fit the models in place, it is most often thrown out.

The role and limits of science
- Science is supposed to study and report on how things work through observation and experimentation; thus, it is forever changing.
- Science today, does not (will not) give metaphysical answers even if the evidence, and conclusions, point in that direction.

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than a mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality…Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning and it is true of evolution still today.”

-Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy and Zoology at the University of Gwelth in Canada, and Ardent Evolutionist

The laws of nature are descriptive not prescriptive
- Operational functions observable today are not automatically the same as they were in the past; and operational functions of the past are not necessarily the same as what we observe today.
- Amounts and rates of measurable substances today, cannot be assumed the same as they were in the past, and can be contaminated by various factors over time.

The Flood
- It is possible a cataclysmic global flood was responsible for catastrophic shifts and changes to the earth’s structure, environment, geography, chemistry and overall physical conditions.
- Are places around the world, like the Grand Canyon, representative of long periods of time, or are they representative of layers laid down quickly by water in a short period of time?

Evolution is a misleading term because it is overarching and broad in its scope and definition

There are two basic meanings to the word “evolution”

Microevolution:

Evidenced in the changes seen in nature and in the diversity of species that are measurable and observable (different kinds of plants, dogs, cats, horses, etc.).
This is also referred to as adaption and/or natural selection.

But does this observable evidence lead to the next conclusion?

Macroevolution:

Takes the evidence of microevolution and infers that species evolve through a gradual series of changes eventually becoming newer and better species ( humans and monkeys come from ape-like creatures, amphibians come from fish, and/or birds come from reptiles).
Taken back far enough – we all began as a single cell bacteria-like organism in a primordial fluid (how that came about is not answered as they defer to abiogenesis=life originating from non-life, appearing out of nothing).
Macroevolution is unobservable. It is not a result of the scientific method, and contrary to popular belief, it does not have the required evidence in the areas that it claims to such as the highly regarded fossil record.

Summary—Important take away:

Microevolution: Changes within species—this is true based on observable adaptation and natural selection.

vs.

Macroevolution: A change from one “kind” of living thing into a new “kind” of living thing—this is false because it has never been observed, and transitional forms are not found in the fossil record.

Who was Darwin and where did this theory of evolution come from?

In the mid 1800’s Charles Darwin, an English Naturalist, used the idea of evolution and wrote books called The Origin of Species and Descent of Man.
In these books Darwin took his studies from the Galapagos Islands and transferred observable changes (adaptations) he saw within species (kinds) to the theory of the origin of species (kinds).
This theory takes an awful leap of faith from the observable microevolution to the unobservable macroevolution.

Evidence that debunks Evolution’s Icons
(still taught as examples of evolution in many textbooks today)

Galapagos finches:

No missing links to a change of kind – they are all still finches

Haekel’s embryos:

Forgeries in the textbooks—there are no similarities in embryos of different species as depicted in high school biology textbooks—these are artist renditions

Ascent of Man Chart:

Misleading drawings—they are artists renditions of human evolution—the bones are actual bones of apes (not human transitions) leading up to the actual human anatomy

Additional misleading icons of evolution

Fruit flies

Mutations here are not beneficial and the flies do not survive

Bacterial mutations

These cause genetic limitations, not improvements

Peppered moths

They adapt and change color not species

Homologous structures

Evidence of a designer (allows for optimal performance); not evidence of a common ancestor

Vestigial Organs

Now know to be functional, not remnants of evolutionary transitions

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.”

Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission

Twelve questions Darwinian Evolution cannot answer

Keep in mind…

There are only two possible causes for life’s origin:

1. A supernatural intelligent cause that demonstrates design and purpose

or,

2. An undirected cause that came about by random chance conditions.

Which one can best answer these questions?

1) The origin of first life. Why is there something rather than nothing at all—where did it all come from originally?

2) Life does not consist merely of chemicals. If this were true mixing the chemicals of life would produce life—What is the missing ingredient?

3) There are no known natural laws that produce specified complexity. There is information in the cell that codes for the performance of specific functions—where does this information come from?

4) There are many human functions and actions that are immaterial. In modern science the search for the cause of origin does not allow for anything immaterial or supernatural, it is built upon a philosophy or presupposition that there is no God. How then can you address the immaterial nature of life (like the soul, intentions, emotions etc.)?

5) Spontaneous generation of life has never been observed. How can something come from nothing; and how can non-living materials give rise to living materials?

Genetic limits:

6) New and beneficial information needs to be added to the DNA to create a new or different kind of living organism. Adding information to the DNA or the cell itself is genetically impossible from an evolutionary perspective. Where is the evidence of new or beneficial genetic information being added that creates a new kind of living thing from another kind?

7) Mutations in the genes do not make improvements in the species and almost always have a negative effect. Mutations take away or cause the loss of information in the cell. Cancer is caused by mutations in the DNA of the cell, this is an example of a negative effect not a positive one. Where are examples of mutations creating new kinds of living thing or contributing in a positive or beneficial direction?

8) Cyclical changes within species never produce a new life form. Birds are still birds, bacteria is still bacteria, and fish are still fish. Where is the new kind of living things created by beak size changes, wing size changes or other changes within a species?

9) Irreducible complexity in biological systems and their parts exist in all living things. Transitional forms would be non-viable and would die out. All pieces must be there simultaneously otherwise an organism would not survive. Where is the evidence of a living thing existing in a transitional stage with missing pieces in their functional parts?

10) Molecular isolation—outside similarities do no match up with inside similarities. Similarity in structure on the outside does not support the dissimilarity of molecular structure internally. Even though they look similar on the outside, they are molecularly different on the inside. How do you get new molecules added to completely different molecules, and DNA codes, that are isolated inside different kinds of species?

The fossil record:

11) The fossil record is scare for transitional forms—Morphology suggests tens of thousands of transitional forms (missing links) should be seen if evolution was true, and they are not. The Cambrian explosion has exposed that the earliest fossils ever discovered have body plans identical to what we see today. Where are the transitional fossils (missing links)?

David Berlinski, Mathematician and Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, poses this question about transitional forms not found in the fossil record:

“How many changes should we see if a complex life form goes, for example, from being a sea-dwelling creature to a land-dwelling creature? Most Morphologists suggest that even with a modest estimate you would need roughly 50,000 morphological changes to make that adaptation which requires specific changes in physiological features and evolutionists hold up maybe two. What happened then, to the other 49,998 forms that we should see in the fossil record? We simply do not know, but neither do the other guys.”

Charles Darwin, said this about his own theory:

“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”

Charles Darwin also admitted:

“If it should be determined that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

-As we now have available to us, through the abundance of evidence from modern science and technology, Darwin’s theory does absolutely break down.

Mathematics—the nail in the coffin:

12) Mathematical probability proves that even if you allow for billions and billions of years there is not enough time for random chance to cause first life; even after first life there is not enough time for evolutionary changes to produce new kinds of living organisms from other kinds. Evolutionists keep moving their historical clock back and dating methods for the age of the universe and are all over the place depending on the institution. How do you account for the origination of first life—can moving the clock back ever answer the origin question?

Probability of evolution by chance?

Walter L. Bradley, Mechanical engineering professor at Texas A&M University and co-author of the book The Mystery of Life’s Origins:

“Since evolutionary scientists have estimated the age of the universe at 14 billion years old and the earth being less than 5 billion years old the mathematical odds of assembling a living organism, even if you optimize the conditions here on earth in those early days, wouldn’t work.”

“…If you took all the carbon in the universe and allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a billion years, the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be one chance in 10 with 60 zeros after it!”

Francis Crick, Nobel prize winner and co-discoverer of the molecular structure of DNA said…

“To produce the miracle of molecular construction, all the cell needs to do is string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain of DNA) in the correct order. This is a complicated biochemical process. Suppose the chain is about 200 amino acids long and, since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some 200 times. This is conveniently written 20 to the 200^th power, that is, a 1 followed by 260 zeros? This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension.”

What does that look like?

To create this one single strand of DNA (by chance) is mathematically one chance in…

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

To simplify the astronomical odds of complex life forms developing over the course of the earth’s history, astronomer Fred Hoyle and mathematician Chandra Wickramasinghe have said…

Is this logically possible?

“The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard.”

Bible Study

Each week we will have Bible study following the presentation. There will be questions presented here on the weekend, and basic answers will be posted mid-week for your review. This can also be used to make a leader’s guide for your own small group and future studies!

Always remember to pray before you study and ask the Holy Spirit to teach you and lead you into the truth found in God’s Word – pray for protection from the evil one who will try to discourage, distract and deceive us when we commit to growing closer to the LORD.

Note: Questions are taken directly from the chapters, and answers should be found and cited from the Scripture text in order to be Biblically accurate (unless asked to summarize in your own words). Study Bibles, commentaries and your own thoughts can be used for Discussion or Going Deeper questions. If you use these kinds of sources share them with your group.

1. Review of Class Topic:

With your table group, discuss today’s presentation by summarizing what you learned, commenting or asking any questions.

Read Genesis Chapter 4 with your group then, to the best of your ability, answer the following questions:

2. Compare and contrast Cain and Abel by answering the following (4:1-7):

Who were they?
What offerings did they bring to God?
How did God respond to each of them concerning their offering?
Did God give Cain a choice to consider, if so, what was it?
Discuss: Why do you think Cain’s offering was unacceptable and Abel’s was? Cross-reference by reading Hebrews 11:4 and 1 John 3:12

3. What happened between Cain and Abel after the offering; and how did Cain respond when God confronted him (4:8-10)? Discuss: Do we ever try to justify ourselves to God? (If comfortable share an example)

4. How did Cain react to God’s discipline, what happened to him and how did God continue to take care of him even though he never repented (4:11-17)? Discuss: Why did God take care of Him, and what does this say about God’s character?

Please join us each week as we continue our case for Genesis!

———————————————————————

You will not find this material in the public school curriculum even though it is based on solid evidence and grounded in research. It is ironic that following the evidence to where it leads stops at the door of our public schools as they will not let a “Divine footprint” in! Join us as we examine evidence for Christianity and learn how to become a thoughtful defender and ambassador of your faith.

Click into the resource page of this website to view many of the top Christian thinkers and apologists along with some of their work; connecting to these types of resources is essential in your Christian growth.

Please let me know what you think: Give feedback, ask questions or send concerns in the comment section of the blog.

Teri Dugan

TeriDugan@truthfaithandreason.com

1 Peter 3:15