Archive of Impact Articles
In this brief thought out of the book of History, we learn that teleology, is one of the building blocks for reconstructing human conduct in the past. It seems that there are three foundational concepts on which history content has been built: the being of God, the nature of origins, and purposefulness or teleology. By way of these three concepts, bias enters into the content because each one of them has two sides facing each other — but separated by a wide range of differences. The two sides are in contradistinction to each other according to the author's choice of content.
Since historians now have an exhaustless reservoir of material about most people who lived on earth, they must select content information for their books. Who determines the guidelines of choice and on what basis is selection made? Ultimately, the historian's value systems and philosophy of life will determine text book content. Therefore, in spite of objectivity goals, personal belief colors the content.
Consider the two sides of each core concept in History. God is defined within the Judaeo-Christian framework as One who has revealed Himself through nature's orderliness: through prophets and human conscience, through the written Word and Jesus, the Living Word; and through history which lays the foundation for our study of history content. If History and the Bible are two of God's media for revelation, the Bible is to be respected as historical truth.
In contradistinction to this teaching, history content may represent God as a humanistic or man-made concept evolving through time and may insist that every people has the right to conceive of deity (deities) according to their choosing because there are no absolutes. The secular-humanistic concept teaches that the Bible "contains the word of God" but it is man's record of his own times as he understood them.
However, archaeology has never uncovered a civilization which did not believe in deity and life after death. The closer archaeological historians have come to Mt. Ararat, the more they have discovered that man's belief in Jehovah-God concurs with the Biblical record.
Concerning the second concept, that of origins, the Judaeo-Christian records declare that in the beginning God was the Creator of a perfectly designed, completed universe. In contra-distinction to this revelation, secular/humanist history teaches that man is the product of evolution over a period of three to five million years (according to Leakey's latest estimate). Principles of basic evolution appear through history content so that it is essential to define its many-sided teaching.
Evolution ... as found in most history content is a combination of Darwinian and contemporary thought: (1) emergency of Homo sapiens out of a series of lower primate groups; (2) survival of the fittest through natural selection but which is also applied to social life and business; (3) race is a sub-species of man; (4) development of monotheism from nature gods (animism) to polytheism, to one power over others as illustrated by the Hebrew tribal deity, Yahweh. Buettner-Janusch have defined evolution today as: (1) change in genetic composition; (2) change in morphological differentiation; (3) progressive diversification. The changes are through mutation, adaptation and natural selection.
While Biblical historians do not deny that changes are everywhere in progress, they teach that changes are a part of the original, internal, planned structuring by God.
By way of illustration, the first unit in most history textbooks is a study of Archaeology and its contribution to History. But Pre-history also appears in this unit and students see pictures of Australopithecines (southern or African ape-like) as the first men — rather than Adam, Eve and the rest of the original family.
The Ice Ages are usually discussed in the first unit of the secular/humanist history as evidence for uniformitarian basis of man's emergence. The Biblical explanation of ice masses says, "They are the results from the Noahic Flood catastrophe." Nothing is said in Humanist history books about the perfectly human elements found even beneath the Australopithecines.
The Institute for Creation Research in San Diego has provided the reading public with extensive scientific literature on this subject. Qualified men of science have established the error of this philosophy.
A Word of Warning ... to history students and teachers: The content of the first unit in any Humanist oriented history will reveal the philosophy and value systems for the rest of the textbook.
The third concept controlling history content is teleology which says that there is a cause and effect relationship between all events or situations. The changes have been a logical result of law-principles at work throughout every part of the universe where God is in control of His Creation. (Daniel 2:19-22 and/or I Sam. 2:2-9).
In contradiction to God's control with purposefulness, is the secular/humanist position teaching students that man is the consequence of his own doing through man's trial-and-error life style.
Whereas the migration-dispersion of people out of the Mesopotamian Valley can be followed with a high degree of accuracy through pottery types, jewelry, burial customs and language, most textbooks tend to ignore this evidence and start the ape-like man in the first unit and then jump into a well developed civilization arriving out of nowhere — as for example, the Sumerians at the northern end of the Persian Gulf. Students are intrigued by the brilliant sciences, trade, religion and architecture that miraculously appear in Sumer, ancient Egypt and the Indus River Valley.
More bold evolutionists teach parallel cultural evolution in several river valleys. The similarity of culture patterns is explained by teaching that each group looked around themselves for ways to modify nature to satisfy basic needs (such as making pottery out of clay). According to secular/humanists, these culture items were developed independently and any likeness to one another was purely coincidental.
Africa has suffered the most from non-Christian history which has pictured non-human primates evolving into Homo sapiens around the Olduvai Gorge or out of the monkey-dominated jungles. The ancient and brilliant civilizations of Ethiopia and North Africa are usually ignored as are the migrations of their cultures southward.
Western civilizations did not originate with Greece and Rome. In giving credit to whom credit is due, the Greeks adopted the Hebrew/Phoenician language and passed it along to the Romans; they copied the Egyptian architecture with its massive columns and the frieze decor. Greek political scientists quite probably based their ideas for democracy and government organization upon the ancient Sumerian bicameral legislature and Persian division of powers.
Upon all of the previous elements used in government, the Romans fashioned their empire that enclosed the Levant and Mediterranean shores. According to Biblical history, all of these governments were a part of God's design creating "the fullness of times" for the coming of His Christ during the time when the Roman Empire controlled the "Middle of the Earth" — a teaching denied by Humanism.
With increasing clearness, authors of recent history textbooks have been giving Judaism, Jesus Christ and the Church a more Biblical matrix. We commend them for this changed attitude. However, one area of history continues to be treated with a preponderance of humanist bias. That is the Byzantine Era. Most historians continue to make Rome the first center of the Church, to give credit to Rome for establishing the solid foundation of Christianity and for spreading the Gospel during the first centuries after Pentecost.
Much more emphasis needs to be placed on the Biblical-Historical order of the emerging Church. According to the Bible (Dr. Luke's book of Acts), the first Church Council was held in Jerusalem with James as the head; then Antioch became the center for the Church's missionary thrust. Hebrew and Christian History has received more accurate treatment since archaeologists such as William Albright of the School of Antiquities at John Hopkins University declared that no part of the Bible has been disproven by the science of Archaeology.
Out from Church centers in Alexandria, Egypt; in Syria and Palestine; in Asia Minor and Greece, the Coptic and Orthodox Churches established local assemblies and commissioned missionaries to carry the Gospel throughout Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe particularly.
God chose the able Emperor Constantine to provide a degree of security in a world of paganism. Orthodox leaders were directed by Constantine to assemble major world councils at Ephesus, Nicea or Constantinople for the express purpose of confirming Christian faith. By the time of Justinian's reign, Constantinople was the strong voice for Christianity. During this period of history known as the Byzantine Era, distinctive Church architecture was designed, schools and seminaries in universities were established and regular Councils were called to settle doctrinal disputes. Representatives from Church assemblies in and around Rome attended the councils with their interpreters because all business was conducted in the Greek language.
Over the Byzantine Bridge crossed Orientalism to become Occidentalism. The cumbersome cuneiform and Semitic languages were exchanged for phonetic, alphabetic script and speech. History was divided into B.C. and A.C. by Byzantine scholars who also established the Hebrew seven-day week.
Western law, not only in the Church, but also in society, is based on Justinian's Christian code of ethics. Byzantine missionaries carried the schools as well as the Gospel into Eastern Europe thereby instilling Christian value systems in society as well as bringing the message of salvation to the individual. One of their greatest contributions to the people where Christianity went was the two-pronged work of putting languages into writing and then translating the Bible into all of the languages. Missionaries from Orthodox churches established hundreds of literate communities.
While the more glaring biases in history content appear in ancient and medieval times, modern history has not escaped the humanists' pens. The Puritan-Pilgrim ethic and education have been distorted. Fundamental Christians have faced ridicule when actually they were the bulwark against German Criticism (known by many names such as the Graf-Wellhausen School of Theology, the J-E-D-P Analysis) and kept the light of the Gospel of Christ burning brightly. Fundamentalist believers started Christian radio stations and Gospel programs; established Bible schools and strong Biblical seminaries; and they applied archaeology to Biblical studies to confirm the Word of God in the midst of pseudo-scientific attacks. The position and influence of Fundamentalists has finally been acknowledged as a positive force in our society when the Gallup Poll published its results in September, 1976. According to that poll, at least 34% of the United States electorate claim to be "born again" and follow the tenets of evangelical Christianity. But what will historians say about them?
In spite of humanist attacks upon evangelical Christianity around the world, Bible-believers have taken a stand against non-Christian textbooks in West Virginia. Biblically oriented books are being written on a thoroughly academic level to counteract the humanist philosophies in History and other subject areas.
Remember Paul's defense of history as revelation: "God who made the world and all it contains, who is Lord of heaven and earth, ... He has made from one person every nation of men to settle on the entire surface of the earth, definitely appointing the preestablished periods and the boundaries of their settlements, …" (from The Modern Language Bible, Acts 17:22-26).
* Dr. Mary Stanton is an educator, archaeologist and historian. She is co-author of the new ICR-sponsored textbook on world history, Streams of Civilization, which incorporates the recommendations in this article.[body_edit] =>The Golden Horde swept across hills and valleys from Mongolia like a swarm of locusts attacking fields of ripened grain. Animal skin clothing blended each Tartar into one being with his lightning-swift horse. Strongmen cowered behind barricaded mosques praying to Allah for protection of their women and children. Christians filled churches and prayed to God for deliverance from "The Scourge of Heaven." Surely, Genghis Khan and his Horde were beasts from the underworld, using churches and mosques as stables and prostitute houses. No good thing escaped their touch. Could these Tartars have served any purpose in History?
Yes, indeed they did. While their pagan conduct cannot be condoned, the Khans' Golden Horde stopped the ravaging worldwide thrust of Islam, organized quarreling tribes of India and prepared the foundation for modern Turkey.
In this brief thought out of the book of History, we learn that teleology, is one of the building blocks for reconstructing human conduct in the past. It seems that there are three foundational concepts on which history content has been built: the being of God, the nature of origins, and purposefulness or teleology. By way of these three concepts, bias enters into the content because each one of them has two sides facing each other — but separated by a wide range of differences. The two sides are in contradistinction to each other according to the author's choice of content.
Since historians now have an exhaustless reservoir of material about most people who lived on earth, they must select content information for their books. Who determines the guidelines of choice and on what basis is selection made? Ultimately, the historian's value systems and philosophy of life will determine text book content. Therefore, in spite of objectivity goals, personal belief colors the content.
Consider the two sides of each core concept in History. God is defined within the Judaeo-Christian framework as One who has revealed Himself through nature's orderliness: through prophets and human conscience, through the written Word and Jesus, the Living Word; and through history which lays the foundation for our study of history content. If History and the Bible are two of God's media for revelation, the Bible is to be respected as historical truth.
In contradistinction to this teaching, history content may represent God as a humanistic or man-made concept evolving through time and may insist that every people has the right to conceive of deity (deities) according to their choosing because there are no absolutes. The secular-humanistic concept teaches that the Bible "contains the word of God" but it is man's record of his own times as he understood them.
However, archaeology has never uncovered a civilization which did not believe in deity and life after death. The closer archaeological historians have come to Mt. Ararat, the more they have discovered that man's belief in Jehovah-God concurs with the Biblical record.
Concerning the second concept, that of origins, the Judaeo-Christian records declare that in the beginning God was the Creator of a perfectly designed, completed universe. In contra-distinction to this revelation, secular/humanist history teaches that man is the product of evolution over a period of three to five million years (according to Leakey's latest estimate). Principles of basic evolution appear through history content so that it is essential to define its many-sided teaching.
Evolution ... as found in most history content is a combination of Darwinian and contemporary thought: (1) emergency of Homo sapiens out of a series of lower primate groups; (2) survival of the fittest through natural selection but which is also applied to social life and business; (3) race is a sub-species of man; (4) development of monotheism from nature gods (animism) to polytheism, to one power over others as illustrated by the Hebrew tribal deity, Yahweh. Buettner-Janusch have defined evolution today as: (1) change in genetic composition; (2) change in morphological differentiation; (3) progressive diversification. The changes are through mutation, adaptation and natural selection.
While Biblical historians do not deny that changes are everywhere in progress, they teach that changes are a part of the original, internal, planned structuring by God.
By way of illustration, the first unit in most history textbooks is a study of Archaeology and its contribution to History. But Pre-history also appears in this unit and students see pictures of Australopithecines (southern or African ape-like) as the first men — rather than Adam, Eve and the rest of the original family.
The Ice Ages are usually discussed in the first unit of the secular/humanist history as evidence for uniformitarian basis of man's emergence. The Biblical explanation of ice masses says, "They are the results from the Noahic Flood catastrophe." Nothing is said in Humanist history books about the perfectly human elements found even beneath the Australopithecines.
The Institute for Creation Research in San Diego has provided the reading public with extensive scientific literature on this subject. Qualified men of science have established the error of this philosophy.
A Word of Warning ... to history students and teachers: The content of the first unit in any Humanist oriented history will reveal the philosophy and value systems for the rest of the textbook.
The third concept controlling history content is teleology which says that there is a cause and effect relationship between all events or situations. The changes have been a logical result of law-principles at work throughout every part of the universe where God is in control of His Creation. (Daniel 2:19-22 and/or I Sam. 2:2-9).
In contradiction to God's control with purposefulness, is the secular/humanist position teaching students that man is the consequence of his own doing through man's trial-and-error life style.
Whereas the migration-dispersion of people out of the Mesopotamian Valley can be followed with a high degree of accuracy through pottery types, jewelry, burial customs and language, most textbooks tend to ignore this evidence and start the ape-like man in the first unit and then jump into a well developed civilization arriving out of nowhere — as for example, the Sumerians at the northern end of the Persian Gulf. Students are intrigued by the brilliant sciences, trade, religion and architecture that miraculously appear in Sumer, ancient Egypt and the Indus River Valley.
More bold evolutionists teach parallel cultural evolution in several river valleys. The similarity of culture patterns is explained by teaching that each group looked around themselves for ways to modify nature to satisfy basic needs (such as making pottery out of clay). According to secular/humanists, these culture items were developed independently and any likeness to one another was purely coincidental.
Africa has suffered the most from non-Christian history which has pictured non-human primates evolving into Homo sapiens around the Olduvai Gorge or out of the monkey-dominated jungles. The ancient and brilliant civilizations of Ethiopia and North Africa are usually ignored as are the migrations of their cultures southward.
Western civilizations did not originate with Greece and Rome. In giving credit to whom credit is due, the Greeks adopted the Hebrew/Phoenician language and passed it along to the Romans; they copied the Egyptian architecture with its massive columns and the frieze decor. Greek political scientists quite probably based their ideas for democracy and government organization upon the ancient Sumerian bicameral legislature and Persian division of powers.
Upon all of the previous elements used in government, the Romans fashioned their empire that enclosed the Levant and Mediterranean shores. According to Biblical history, all of these governments were a part of God's design creating "the fullness of times" for the coming of His Christ during the time when the Roman Empire controlled the "Middle of the Earth" — a teaching denied by Humanism.
With increasing clearness, authors of recent history textbooks have been giving Judaism, Jesus Christ and the Church a more Biblical matrix. We commend them for this changed attitude. However, one area of history continues to be treated with a preponderance of humanist bias. That is the Byzantine Era. Most historians continue to make Rome the first center of the Church, to give credit to Rome for establishing the solid foundation of Christianity and for spreading the Gospel during the first centuries after Pentecost.
Much more emphasis needs to be placed on the Biblical-Historical order of the emerging Church. According to the Bible (Dr. Luke's book of Acts), the first Church Council was held in Jerusalem with James as the head; then Antioch became the center for the Church's missionary thrust. Hebrew and Christian History has received more accurate treatment since archaeologists such as William Albright of the School of Antiquities at John Hopkins University declared that no part of the Bible has been disproven by the science of Archaeology.
Out from Church centers in Alexandria, Egypt; in Syria and Palestine; in Asia Minor and Greece, the Coptic and Orthodox Churches established local assemblies and commissioned missionaries to carry the Gospel throughout Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe particularly.
God chose the able Emperor Constantine to provide a degree of security in a world of paganism. Orthodox leaders were directed by Constantine to assemble major world councils at Ephesus, Nicea or Constantinople for the express purpose of confirming Christian faith. By the time of Justinian's reign, Constantinople was the strong voice for Christianity. During this period of history known as the Byzantine Era, distinctive Church architecture was designed, schools and seminaries in universities were established and regular Councils were called to settle doctrinal disputes. Representatives from Church assemblies in and around Rome attended the councils with their interpreters because all business was conducted in the Greek language.
Over the Byzantine Bridge crossed Orientalism to become Occidentalism. The cumbersome cuneiform and Semitic languages were exchanged for phonetic, alphabetic script and speech. History was divided into B.C. and A.C. by Byzantine scholars who also established the Hebrew seven-day week.
Western law, not only in the Church, but also in society, is based on Justinian's Christian code of ethics. Byzantine missionaries carried the schools as well as the Gospel into Eastern Europe thereby instilling Christian value systems in society as well as bringing the message of salvation to the individual. One of their greatest contributions to the people where Christianity went was the two-pronged work of putting languages into writing and then translating the Bible into all of the languages. Missionaries from Orthodox churches established hundreds of literate communities.
While the more glaring biases in history content appear in ancient and medieval times, modern history has not escaped the humanists' pens. The Puritan-Pilgrim ethic and education have been distorted. Fundamental Christians have faced ridicule when actually they were the bulwark against German Criticism (known by many names such as the Graf-Wellhausen School of Theology, the J-E-D-P Analysis) and kept the light of the Gospel of Christ burning brightly. Fundamentalist believers started Christian radio stations and Gospel programs; established Bible schools and strong Biblical seminaries; and they applied archaeology to Biblical studies to confirm the Word of God in the midst of pseudo-scientific attacks. The position and influence of Fundamentalists has finally been acknowledged as a positive force in our society when the Gallup Poll published its results in September, 1976. According to that poll, at least 34% of the United States electorate claim to be "born again" and follow the tenets of evangelical Christianity. But what will historians say about them?
In spite of humanist attacks upon evangelical Christianity around the world, Bible-believers have taken a stand against non-Christian textbooks in West Virginia. Biblically oriented books are being written on a thoroughly academic level to counteract the humanist philosophies in History and other subject areas.
Remember Paul's defense of history as revelation: "God who made the world and all it contains, who is Lord of heaven and earth, ... He has made from one person every nation of men to settle on the entire surface of the earth, definitely appointing the preestablished periods and the boundaries of their settlements, …" (from The Modern Language Bible, Acts 17:22-26).
* Dr. Mary Stanton is an educator, archaeologist and historian. She is co-author of the new ICR-sponsored textbook on world history, Streams of Civilization, which incorporates the recommendations in this article.[typeID] => 2 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => can-yourecognize-bias-history-content [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => Mary Stanton, Ed.D. ) -->
Human growth hormone has 188 amino acids arranged in a unique
and precise sequence. Ribonuclease, an enzyme that catalyzes the
hydrolysis of ribonucleic acids (RNA), has 124 amino acids arranged
in its own unique sequence. Bovine glutamate dehydrogenase, another
enzyme, has six identical chains of 506 amino acids each. The
alpha chain of human hemoglobin, the red blood protein, has 141
amino acids, and the beta chain has 146 amino acids. Hemoglobin
is a complex which includes four protein molecules, two each of
the alpha and beta proteins, plus iron, plus a complex chemical
called heme.
The particular amino acid sequence of each of these protein molecules
is responsible for their unique biological activity. Furthermore,
a change of a single amino acid generally destroys or severely
diminishes this activity. For example, some individuals inherit
a defective gene which causes the amino acid valine to be substituted
for glutamic acid at position 6 in the beta chain of their hemoglobin.
The other 286 amino acids (the remaining 145 in the beta chain
and the 141 in the alpha chain) remain unchanged—only one out
of 287 amino acids is affected. The defect, however, causes sickle
cell anemia, a disease that is invariably fatal.
The genetic messages are encoded in the genes, which are composed
of DNA, via the specific sequence of the nucleotides. There are
four different nucleotides, but each "letter" of the
genetic "language" consists of a set of three of the
four nucleotides. Sixty-four such sets (43) can be
derived from these four nucleotides, and thus the genetic "language"
has an alphabet of 64 "letters." Genes generally have
from a hundred or so of these sets up to several thousand of the
sets. This would require the precise ordering of three times that
many nucleotides, since there are three in each set. The various
kinds of RNA would have equal complexity.
As mentioned earlier in the section of the last article in this
series, in which Fox's scheme was being discussed, when amino
acids and nucleotides are combined, or polymerized, by chemical
methods, the amino acids in polypeptides (proteins) and the nucleotides
in polynucleotides (DNA and RNA) so derived are arranged in disordered,
or random sequences, just as a string of letters typed by a monkey
would be randomly arranged. For biologically active molecules
to have arisen on the earth by naturalistic processes, there would
have had to be some machinery or mechanism in existence to cause
ordering of the subunits in a precise or nearly precise fashion.
The ordering mechanism would have had to be highly efficient,
since the precise structures required for biological activity
impose the severest restraints on the structures of these molecules,
just as writing this sentence correctly allows one way, and one
way only, for the letters composing it to be arranged. No such
ordering mechanism has yet been suggested, nor could any exist
under natural conditions. Once ordered sequences, such as enzymes,
DNA and RNA, as well as complex energy-coupling and energy-generating
systems existed, one might imagine how these ordered sequences
could have been duplicated, but that would never explain the origin
of these ordered sequences in the first place.
Some have imagined that random processes, given the four or five
billion years postulated by evolutionists for the age of the earth,
could have generated certain ordered sequences by pure chance.
The time required for a single protein molecule to arise by pure
chance, however, would exceed billions of times five billion years,
the assumed age of the earth.
For example, only seventeen different amino acids (one of each)
can be arranged in over 355 trillion (17 factorial) different
ways. Put another way, 17 people could line up over 355 trillion
different ways (if you don't believe it, get 16 friends
together and try it!). Furthermore, if one were to arrange a sequence
of 17 amino acids, and could choose from 20 (the number of different
amino acids found in proteins) instead of 17, and were allowed
to repeat amino acids (as would have been the case in the origin
of proteins), about ten sextillion sequences could be obtained
(2017, or 1022)!
Immense as these numbers are, it could be argued that their origin
even by completely random processes would have a finite probability
in five billion years. But 17 is far too short for biological
activity. Proteins, DNA, and RNA usually contain hundreds of subunits.
A sequence of 100 might be more realistic. One hundred amino acids
of 20 different kinds could be arranged in 20100, or
10130 different ways. What would be the probability
of one unique sequence of 100 amino acids, composed of 20 different
amino acids, arising by chance in five billion years?
Let it be illustrated in the following fashion. The number of
different ways the letters in a sentence containing 100 letters
of 20 different kinds could be arranged would be equal to the
number of different protein molecules just mentioned (10130).
A monkey typing 100 letters every second for five billion years
would not have the remotest chance of typing a particular sentence
of 100 letters even once without spelling errors.
In fact, if one billion (109) planets the size
of the earth were covered eyeball-to-eyeball and elbow-to-elbow
with monkeys, and each monkey was seated at a typewriter (requiring
about 10 square feet for each monkey, of the approximately 1016
square feet available on each of the 109 planets),
and each monkey typed a string of 100 letters every second
for five billion years (about 1017 seconds) the chances
are overwhelming that not one of these monkeys would have typed
the sentence correctly! Only 1041 tries could be made
by all these monkeys in that five billion years (109 x
1016 x 1017 divided by 10 = 1041).
There would not be the slightest chance that a single one of the
1024 monkeys (a trillion trillion monkeys) would have
typed a preselected sentence of 100 letters (such as "The
subject of this Impact article is the naturalistic origin
of life on the earth under assumed primordial conditions")
without a spelling error, even once.
The number of tries possible (1041) is such a minute
fraction of the total number of possibilities (10130),
that the probability that one of the monkeys would have typed
the correct sentence is less than the impossibility threshold.
The degree of difference between these two numbers is enormous,
and may be illustrated by the fact that 1041 times
a trillion(1012) is still only 1053, and
1053 times a trillion is only 1065, 1065
times a trillion is only 1077, etc. In fact, 1041
would have to be multiplied by a trillion more than seven times
to equal 10130. Even after 1041 tries had
been made, there would still be much, much more than 10129
arrangements that hadn't yet been tried (1041 is
such an insignificantly small number compared to 10130 that
10130 - 1041
is about equal to 10130 minus zero!).
Considering an enzyme, then, of 100 amino acids, there would
be no possibility whatever that a single molecule could ever have
arisen by pure chance on the earth in five billion years. But
if by some miracle it did happen once, only a single molecule
would have been produced, yet billions of tons of each of many
different protein, DNA, and RNA molecules would have to be produced.
The probability of this happening, of course, is absolutely nil.
It must be concluded, therefore, that a naturalistic origin of
the many biologically active molecules required for the most primitive
organism imaginable would have been impossible.
Origin of Stable, Complex,
Biologically Active Systems
The problem of explaining the manner in which the above macromolecules
became associated into systems that would have had even the most
rudimentary ability to function as metabolically active systems
capable of assuring their own maintenance, reproduction, and diversification
is tremendously more complex and difficult than any attempts to
explain the origin of the macromolecules themselves. Green and
Goldberger have stated, " ... the macromolecule-to-cell transition
is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range
of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available
facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose
on this planet."1 Kerkut, in his little book exposing
the fallacies and weaknesses in the evidence usually used to support
evolution (although he, himself, is not a creationist) said, "It
is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that
biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis
happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen
is not available."2
Nevertheless, there are those who persist in attempts to provide
a rational explanation for bridging the vast chasm separating
a loose mixture of molecules and a living system. The extent of
this chasm is enormous when we view the two extremes — an
ocean containing a random mixture of macromolecules — proteins,
nucleic acids; carbohydrates) and other molecules essential for
life, in contrast to an isolated, highly complex, intricately
integrated, enormously efficient, self-maintaining and self-replicating
system represented by the simplest living thing.
Assuming that there was, at one time, an ocean full of these
marvelous macromolecules that somehow had become endowed with
at least some measure of "biological" activity,
one must explain, first of all, how these macromolecules disassociated
themselves from this dilute milieu and became integrated into
some crude, but functional and stable system.
We can say immediately that under no naturally occurring conditions
could complex systems spontaneously arise from a random mixture
of macromolecules. There is absolutely no tendency for disordered
systems to spontaneously self-organize themselves into more ordered
states. On the contrary, all systems naturally tend to become
less and less orderly. The more probable state of matter is always
a random state. Evolution of life theories thus contradict natural
laws. Nevertheless, evolutionists persist in speculating that
life arose spontaneously.
Oparin's Coacervate Theory
Because of limitation of space, only one theory, that of A. I.
Oparin, the Russian biochemist and pioneer in origin of life theories,
will be discussed. Most of the basic objections to his theory
are applicable to Fox's microspheres and all similar suggestions.
Oparin has proposed that coacervates may have been the intermediates
between loose molecules and living systems (a review of Oparin's
proposals may be found in Kenyon and Steinman3). Coacervates
are colloidal particles which form when macromolecules associate
with one another and precipitate out of solution in the form of
tiny droplets. Complex coacervates are those that form between
two different types of macromolecules. For instance, such a coacervate
will form between a histone, which is a basic protein, and a nucleic
acid, which is acidic. Another example is the coacervate that
will form from a complex of gelatin (basic, and thus positively
charged) and negatively charged gum arabic.
Oparin, and others, have claimed that complex coacervates possess
properties that may have enabled them to form protocells. It was
shown that certain coacervates absorbed enzymes from the surrounding
medium and that these enzymes were able to function inside the
coacervate.4,5 It should be understood, however, that
the association of macromolecules to form coacervates, and the
absorption of molecules from the surrounding medium, is due to
simple chemical and physical phenomena, and is thus not selective,
self-organizing or stable. Basic histones and nucleic acids form
coacervates simply because one is basic, thus positively charged,
and one is acidic, and thus negatively charged. There is a simple
electrostatic attraction between the two. Basic histones, of course,
would attract any acidic, or negatively charged, particles,
and nucleic acids would attract any basic, or positively
charged, particles. This attraction would not be selective, and
if a chaotic mixture prevailed in the medium, the coacervates
would be a chaotic mixture.
Enzyme activity is only useful when it is coordinated with other
enzyme activities. We have already given reasons why it would
have been impossible for any one particular macromolecule, such
as a protein enzyme, to have been formed in any significant amount.
But suppose that it did just happen that a few enzyme molecules
were absorbed into a coacervate. The action of this enzyme would
have been meaningless and useless unless some other enzyme was
also present which produced the substrate for the first enzyme,
and unless there was another enzyme that could utilize its product.
In other words, it would be useless for a coacervate to convert
glucose1-phosphate into glucose-6-phosphate unless it also possessed
a source of glucose-1-phosphate and unless it could further utilize
the glucose-6-phosphate once it was produced. A factory that has
no source of raw materials, or which has no market for its product
must shut down in a short time. Living systems are extremely complex,
having hundreds of series of metabolic pathways perfectly coordinated
and controlled. Substrates are passed along these pathways as
each enzyme performs its highly specialized chemical task, and
coordination in space and time is such that each enzyme is provided
with a controlled amount of substrate, and the successive enzyme
is there to receive the substrate and in turn to perform its task.
Each chemical task performed is useful and purposeful because
it is coordinated in a marvelous way with all the other activities
of the cell.
Without this coordination, enzyme activity would not only be
useless, it would be destructive. Let us assume, for example,
that a proteolytic enzyme (this is an enzyme which catalyzes the
hydrolysis, or breakdown, of proteins) somehow did arise in the
"primordial soup" and this enzyme was absorbed into
a coacervate or one of Fox's proteinoid microspheres. The results
would be totally disastrous, for the enzyme would "chew up"
all the protein in sight, and that would be the end of the coacervate
or microsphere! Similarly, a deaminase would indiscriminately
deaminate all amines, a decarboxylase would decarboxylate all
carboxylic acids, a DNAse would break down all DNA, and an RNAse
would break down all RNA. Uncontrolled, uncoordinated enzymatic
activity would be totally destructive.
Such control and coordination in a coacervate, microsphere, or
other hypothetical system would have been nonexistent. The complex
metabolic pathways and control systems found in living things
owe their existence to the highly complex structures found only
within living things, such as chloroplasts, mitochondria, Golgi
bodies, microsomes, and other structures found within the cell.
Some of these are enclosed within membranes, and the cell, itself,
is of course, enclosed within a very complex, dynamically functioning
multi-layered membrane. Control and coordination, absolutely essential
to any living thing or to any metabolically active system, could
only exist through the agency of complex structures similar to
those mentioned above, but they, in turn, can only be produced
by complex, metabolically active systems. One could not arise
or exist in the absence of the other. They must have coexisted
from the beginning, rendering evolutionary schemes impossible.
Another very serious objection to the idea of Oparin's coacervates
is their inherent instability. They form only under special conditions,
and readily dissolve with dilution, shift in pH, warming, pressure,
etc. This instability has been cited by Fox6, by Young7,
and by Kenyon and Steinman.8 Instability is a most
fundamental objection to any type of system that can be proposed
to bridge the gap between molecules and living cells. All of these
proposed models, whether they be Oparin's coacervates, Fox's microspheres,
or any other model, suffer this basic and fatal weakness. One
of the reasons living cells are stable and can persist is that
they have membranes that protect the system within the membrane
and hold it together. The membrane of a living cell is very complex
in structure and marvelous in its function. A coacervate or a
protein microsphere may have a pseudomembrane, or a concentration
or orientation of material at the point of contact with the surrounding
medium that gives it the appearance of having a membrane. There
are no chemical bonds linking the macromolecules in this pseudomembrane,
however, and it is easily broken up, and the contents of the coacervate
or microsphere are then released into the medium.
Since these coacervates have this inherent instability, no coacervate
could have existed for a length of time that would have had any
significance whatsoever to the origin of life. Even if we could
imagine a primitive "soup" concentrated sufficiently
in macromolecules to allow coacervates to form, their existence
would have been brief. Any organization that may have formed in
these coacervates by any imaginable process would then have been
irretrievably lost as the contents of the coacervate spilled out
into the medium.
Theories that attempt to account for the origin of stable metabolic
systems from loose macromolecules thus suffer from a number of
fatal weaknesses. First is the requirement that the necessary
macromolecules be produced in sufficiently vast amounts to saturate
the primeval seas to the point where complex coacervates or protenoid
microspheres would precipitate out of solution. Secondly, such
globular products are inherently unstable and would easily be
dissolved or disintegrated, spilling their contents out into the
medium. Geological ages, however, would have been required for
a loose system to evolve into a stable, living cell, assuming
such a process were possible at all. As we have seen above, however,
there is no tendency at all for complex systems to form spontaneously
from simple systems. There is a general natural tendency, on the
other hand, for organized systems to spontaneously disintegrate
to a disordered state. Thirdly, even if it were imagined that
a coacervate of some kind could accrete or inherently possess
some catalytic ability, this catalytic ability would have been
purposeless, and thus useless, and actually destructive.
The Origin of the First Completely
Independent, Stable, Self-Reproducing Unit—The First Living Cell
The simplest form of life known to science contains hundreds
of different kinds of enzymes, thousands of different kinds of
RNA and DNA molecules, and thousands of other kinds of complex
molecules. As mentioned above, it is enclosed within a very complex
membrane and contains a large number of structures many of which
are enclosed within their own membrane. The thousands of chemical
reactions which occur in this cell are strictly coordinated with
one another in time and space in a harmonious system, all working
together towards the self-maintenance and eventual reproduction
of this living cell. Every detail of its structure and function
reveals purposefulness; its incredible complexity and marvelous
capabilities reveal a master plan.
It seems futile enough to attempt to imagine how this amazingly
complex system could have come into existence in the first place
in view of the vast amount of contradictory evidence. Its continued
existence from the very start, however, would have required mechanisms
especially designed for self-maintenance and self-reproduction.
There are numerous injurious processes which would prove fatal
for the cell if repair mechanisms did not exist. These injurious
processes include dimerization of the thymine units in DNA, deamination
of cytosine, adenine, and guanine in DNA and RNA, deamidation
of glutamine and asparagine in proteins, and the production of
toxic peroxides, just to cite a few. The cell is endowed with
complex, defense mechanisms, in each case involving an enzyme
or a series of enzymes. Since these defense mechanisms are absolutely
necessary for the survival of the cell, they would have had to
exist from the very beginning. Life could not have waited until
such mechanisms evolved, for life would be impossible in their
absence.
The ultimate fate of a cell or any living thing is death and
destruction. No dynamically functioning unit therefore can survive
as a species without self-reproduction. The ability to reproduce,
however, would have had to exist from the very beginning in any
system, no matter how simple or complex, that could have given
rise eventually to a living thing. Yet the ability to reproduce
requires such a complex mechanism that the machinery required
for this process would have been the last thing that could
possibly have evolved. This dilemma has no solution and thus poses
the final insuperable barrier to the origin of life by a naturalistic
process.
We conclude that a materialistic, mechanistic, evolutionary origin
of life is directly contradicted by known natural laws and processes.
The origin of life could only have occurred through the acts of
an omniscient Creator independent of and external to the natural
universe. "In the beginning God created" is still the
most up-to-date statement we can make concerning the origin of
life.
REFERENCES
1
D. E. Green and R. F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights into the
Living Process, Academic Press, New York, 1967, p. 407.
2 G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, Pergamon
Press, New York, 1960, p. 150.
3 D. H. Kenyon and G. Steinman, Biochemical Predestination,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1969, p. 245.
4 A. I. Oparin, The Origin of Life on the Earth,
Academic Press, New York, 1957, p. 428.
5 A. I. Oparin, in The Origins of Prebiological
Systems and of their Molecular Matrices, S. W. Fox, Ed., Academic
Press, New York, 1965, p. 331.
6 S. W. Fox in Reference 5, p. 345.
7 R. S. Young in Reference 5, p. 348.
8 Reference 3, p. 250.
*
An elaboration of this material in much greater detail may be
found in Dr. Gish's monograph, "Speculations and Experiments
Related to Theories on the Origin of Life." Creation-Life
Publishers, 1972.
**
Dr. Duane T. Gish is the Vice President of ICR. Dr. Gish has degrees
from both U.C.L.A. and the University of California at Berkeley
(Ph.D., Biochemistry), as well as 18 years experience in biochemical
and biomedical research at Berkeley, Cornell University, and the
Upjohn Company.
[body_edit] => The second article of this series included a discussion of Fox's
scheme, or thermal model, for overcoming the thermodynamic barrier
to the formation of proteins (amino acid polymers), and a discussion
of other polymerization schemes. It was pointed out that Fox's
thermal model involves a series of conditions and events, most
of which would have had such a vanishingly low order of probability
on any plausible primitive earth, that the overall probability
of protenoid microspheres arising through natural processes would
have been nil. It was further pointed out that, in any case, the
polymers produced by such a postulated process would have consisted
of randomly arranged amino acids with no significant biological
activity and thus Fox's model has no relevance to the origin of
living systems.
The problem of overcoming the thermodynamic barrier in the polymerization
of amino acids and nucleotides, as insolvable as this appears
to be, is dwarfed by a vastly greater problem—the origin of the
highly ordered, highly specific sequences in proteins, DNA, and
RNA which endow these molecules with their marvelous biological
activities. Proteins generally have from about a hundred up to
several hundred amino acids arranged in a precise order or sequence.
Twenty different kinds of amino acids are found in proteins, so
it may be said that the protein "language" has twenty
letters. Just as the letters of the alphabet must be arranged
in a precise sequence to write this sentence, or any sentence,
so the amino acids must be arranged in a precise sequence for
a protein to possess biological activity.
Human growth hormone has 188 amino acids arranged in a unique
and precise sequence. Ribonuclease, an enzyme that catalyzes the
hydrolysis of ribonucleic acids (RNA), has 124 amino acids arranged
in its own unique sequence. Bovine glutamate dehydrogenase, another
enzyme, has six identical chains of 506 amino acids each. The
alpha chain of human hemoglobin, the red blood protein, has 141
amino acids, and the beta chain has 146 amino acids. Hemoglobin
is a complex which includes four protein molecules, two each of
the alpha and beta proteins, plus iron, plus a complex chemical
called heme.
The particular amino acid sequence of each of these protein molecules
is responsible for their unique biological activity. Furthermore,
a change of a single amino acid generally destroys or severely
diminishes this activity. For example, some individuals inherit
a defective gene which causes the amino acid valine to be substituted
for glutamic acid at position 6 in the beta chain of their hemoglobin.
The other 286 amino acids (the remaining 145 in the beta chain
and the 141 in the alpha chain) remain unchanged—only one out
of 287 amino acids is affected. The defect, however, causes sickle
cell anemia, a disease that is invariably fatal.
The genetic messages are encoded in the genes, which are composed
of DNA, via the specific sequence of the nucleotides. There are
four different nucleotides, but each "letter" of the
genetic "language" consists of a set of three of the
four nucleotides. Sixty-four such sets (43) can be
derived from these four nucleotides, and thus the genetic "language"
has an alphabet of 64 "letters." Genes generally have
from a hundred or so of these sets up to several thousand of the
sets. This would require the precise ordering of three times that
many nucleotides, since there are three in each set. The various
kinds of RNA would have equal complexity.
As mentioned earlier in the section of the last article in this
series, in which Fox's scheme was being discussed, when amino
acids and nucleotides are combined, or polymerized, by chemical
methods, the amino acids in polypeptides (proteins) and the nucleotides
in polynucleotides (DNA and RNA) so derived are arranged in disordered,
or random sequences, just as a string of letters typed by a monkey
would be randomly arranged. For biologically active molecules
to have arisen on the earth by naturalistic processes, there would
have had to be some machinery or mechanism in existence to cause
ordering of the subunits in a precise or nearly precise fashion.
The ordering mechanism would have had to be highly efficient,
since the precise structures required for biological activity
impose the severest restraints on the structures of these molecules,
just as writing this sentence correctly allows one way, and one
way only, for the letters composing it to be arranged. No such
ordering mechanism has yet been suggested, nor could any exist
under natural conditions. Once ordered sequences, such as enzymes,
DNA and RNA, as well as complex energy-coupling and energy-generating
systems existed, one might imagine how these ordered sequences
could have been duplicated, but that would never explain the origin
of these ordered sequences in the first place.
Some have imagined that random processes, given the four or five
billion years postulated by evolutionists for the age of the earth,
could have generated certain ordered sequences by pure chance.
The time required for a single protein molecule to arise by pure
chance, however, would exceed billions of times five billion years,
the assumed age of the earth.
For example, only seventeen different amino acids (one of each)
can be arranged in over 355 trillion (17 factorial) different
ways. Put another way, 17 people could line up over 355 trillion
different ways (if you don't believe it, get 16 friends
together and try it!). Furthermore, if one were to arrange a sequence
of 17 amino acids, and could choose from 20 (the number of different
amino acids found in proteins) instead of 17, and were allowed
to repeat amino acids (as would have been the case in the origin
of proteins), about ten sextillion sequences could be obtained
(2017, or 1022)!
Immense as these numbers are, it could be argued that their origin
even by completely random processes would have a finite probability
in five billion years. But 17 is far too short for biological
activity. Proteins, DNA, and RNA usually contain hundreds of subunits.
A sequence of 100 might be more realistic. One hundred amino acids
of 20 different kinds could be arranged in 20100, or
10130 different ways. What would be the probability
of one unique sequence of 100 amino acids, composed of 20 different
amino acids, arising by chance in five billion years?
Let it be illustrated in the following fashion. The number of
different ways the letters in a sentence containing 100 letters
of 20 different kinds could be arranged would be equal to the
number of different protein molecules just mentioned (10130).
A monkey typing 100 letters every second for five billion years
would not have the remotest chance of typing a particular sentence
of 100 letters even once without spelling errors.
In fact, if one billion (109) planets the size
of the earth were covered eyeball-to-eyeball and elbow-to-elbow
with monkeys, and each monkey was seated at a typewriter (requiring
about 10 square feet for each monkey, of the approximately 1016
square feet available on each of the 109 planets),
and each monkey typed a string of 100 letters every second
for five billion years (about 1017 seconds) the chances
are overwhelming that not one of these monkeys would have typed
the sentence correctly! Only 1041 tries could be made
by all these monkeys in that five billion years (109 x
1016 x 1017 divided by 10 = 1041).
There would not be the slightest chance that a single one of the
1024 monkeys (a trillion trillion monkeys) would have
typed a preselected sentence of 100 letters (such as "The
subject of this Impact article is the naturalistic origin
of life on the earth under assumed primordial conditions")
without a spelling error, even once.
The number of tries possible (1041) is such a minute
fraction of the total number of possibilities (10130),
that the probability that one of the monkeys would have typed
the correct sentence is less than the impossibility threshold.
The degree of difference between these two numbers is enormous,
and may be illustrated by the fact that 1041 times
a trillion(1012) is still only 1053, and
1053 times a trillion is only 1065, 1065
times a trillion is only 1077, etc. In fact, 1041
would have to be multiplied by a trillion more than seven times
to equal 10130. Even after 1041 tries had
been made, there would still be much, much more than 10129
arrangements that hadn't yet been tried (1041 is
such an insignificantly small number compared to 10130 that
10130 - 1041
is about equal to 10130 minus zero!).
Considering an enzyme, then, of 100 amino acids, there would
be no possibility whatever that a single molecule could ever have
arisen by pure chance on the earth in five billion years. But
if by some miracle it did happen once, only a single molecule
would have been produced, yet billions of tons of each of many
different protein, DNA, and RNA molecules would have to be produced.
The probability of this happening, of course, is absolutely nil.
It must be concluded, therefore, that a naturalistic origin of
the many biologically active molecules required for the most primitive
organism imaginable would have been impossible.
Origin of Stable, Complex,
Biologically Active Systems
The problem of explaining the manner in which the above macromolecules
became associated into systems that would have had even the most
rudimentary ability to function as metabolically active systems
capable of assuring their own maintenance, reproduction, and diversification
is tremendously more complex and difficult than any attempts to
explain the origin of the macromolecules themselves. Green and
Goldberger have stated, " ... the macromolecule-to-cell transition
is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range
of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available
facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose
on this planet."1 Kerkut, in his little book exposing
the fallacies and weaknesses in the evidence usually used to support
evolution (although he, himself, is not a creationist) said, "It
is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that
biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis
happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen
is not available."2
Nevertheless, there are those who persist in attempts to provide
a rational explanation for bridging the vast chasm separating
a loose mixture of molecules and a living system. The extent of
this chasm is enormous when we view the two extremes — an
ocean containing a random mixture of macromolecules — proteins,
nucleic acids; carbohydrates) and other molecules essential for
life, in contrast to an isolated, highly complex, intricately
integrated, enormously efficient, self-maintaining and self-replicating
system represented by the simplest living thing.
Assuming that there was, at one time, an ocean full of these
marvelous macromolecules that somehow had become endowed with
at least some measure of "biological" activity,
one must explain, first of all, how these macromolecules disassociated
themselves from this dilute milieu and became integrated into
some crude, but functional and stable system.
We can say immediately that under no naturally occurring conditions
could complex systems spontaneously arise from a random mixture
of macromolecules. There is absolutely no tendency for disordered
systems to spontaneously self-organize themselves into more ordered
states. On the contrary, all systems naturally tend to become
less and less orderly. The more probable state of matter is always
a random state. Evolution of life theories thus contradict natural
laws. Nevertheless, evolutionists persist in speculating that
life arose spontaneously.
Oparin's Coacervate Theory
Because of limitation of space, only one theory, that of A. I.
Oparin, the Russian biochemist and pioneer in origin of life theories,
will be discussed. Most of the basic objections to his theory
are applicable to Fox's microspheres and all similar suggestions.
Oparin has proposed that coacervates may have been the intermediates
between loose molecules and living systems (a review of Oparin's
proposals may be found in Kenyon and Steinman3). Coacervates
are colloidal particles which form when macromolecules associate
with one another and precipitate out of solution in the form of
tiny droplets. Complex coacervates are those that form between
two different types of macromolecules. For instance, such a coacervate
will form between a histone, which is a basic protein, and a nucleic
acid, which is acidic. Another example is the coacervate that
will form from a complex of gelatin (basic, and thus positively
charged) and negatively charged gum arabic.
Oparin, and others, have claimed that complex coacervates possess
properties that may have enabled them to form protocells. It was
shown that certain coacervates absorbed enzymes from the surrounding
medium and that these enzymes were able to function inside the
coacervate.4,5 It should be understood, however, that
the association of macromolecules to form coacervates, and the
absorption of molecules from the surrounding medium, is due to
simple chemical and physical phenomena, and is thus not selective,
self-organizing or stable. Basic histones and nucleic acids form
coacervates simply because one is basic, thus positively charged,
and one is acidic, and thus negatively charged. There is a simple
electrostatic attraction between the two. Basic histones, of course,
would attract any acidic, or negatively charged, particles,
and nucleic acids would attract any basic, or positively
charged, particles. This attraction would not be selective, and
if a chaotic mixture prevailed in the medium, the coacervates
would be a chaotic mixture.
Enzyme activity is only useful when it is coordinated with other
enzyme activities. We have already given reasons why it would
have been impossible for any one particular macromolecule, such
as a protein enzyme, to have been formed in any significant amount.
But suppose that it did just happen that a few enzyme molecules
were absorbed into a coacervate. The action of this enzyme would
have been meaningless and useless unless some other enzyme was
also present which produced the substrate for the first enzyme,
and unless there was another enzyme that could utilize its product.
In other words, it would be useless for a coacervate to convert
glucose1-phosphate into glucose-6-phosphate unless it also possessed
a source of glucose-1-phosphate and unless it could further utilize
the glucose-6-phosphate once it was produced. A factory that has
no source of raw materials, or which has no market for its product
must shut down in a short time. Living systems are extremely complex,
having hundreds of series of metabolic pathways perfectly coordinated
and controlled. Substrates are passed along these pathways as
each enzyme performs its highly specialized chemical task, and
coordination in space and time is such that each enzyme is provided
with a controlled amount of substrate, and the successive enzyme
is there to receive the substrate and in turn to perform its task.
Each chemical task performed is useful and purposeful because
it is coordinated in a marvelous way with all the other activities
of the cell.
Without this coordination, enzyme activity would not only be
useless, it would be destructive. Let us assume, for example,
that a proteolytic enzyme (this is an enzyme which catalyzes the
hydrolysis, or breakdown, of proteins) somehow did arise in the
"primordial soup" and this enzyme was absorbed into
a coacervate or one of Fox's proteinoid microspheres. The results
would be totally disastrous, for the enzyme would "chew up"
all the protein in sight, and that would be the end of the coacervate
or microsphere! Similarly, a deaminase would indiscriminately
deaminate all amines, a decarboxylase would decarboxylate all
carboxylic acids, a DNAse would break down all DNA, and an RNAse
would break down all RNA. Uncontrolled, uncoordinated enzymatic
activity would be totally destructive.
Such control and coordination in a coacervate, microsphere, or
other hypothetical system would have been nonexistent. The complex
metabolic pathways and control systems found in living things
owe their existence to the highly complex structures found only
within living things, such as chloroplasts, mitochondria, Golgi
bodies, microsomes, and other structures found within the cell.
Some of these are enclosed within membranes, and the cell, itself,
is of course, enclosed within a very complex, dynamically functioning
multi-layered membrane. Control and coordination, absolutely essential
to any living thing or to any metabolically active system, could
only exist through the agency of complex structures similar to
those mentioned above, but they, in turn, can only be produced
by complex, metabolically active systems. One could not arise
or exist in the absence of the other. They must have coexisted
from the beginning, rendering evolutionary schemes impossible.
Another very serious objection to the idea of Oparin's coacervates
is their inherent instability. They form only under special conditions,
and readily dissolve with dilution, shift in pH, warming, pressure,
etc. This instability has been cited by Fox6, by Young7,
and by Kenyon and Steinman.8 Instability is a most
fundamental objection to any type of system that can be proposed
to bridge the gap between molecules and living cells. All of these
proposed models, whether they be Oparin's coacervates, Fox's microspheres,
or any other model, suffer this basic and fatal weakness. One
of the reasons living cells are stable and can persist is that
they have membranes that protect the system within the membrane
and hold it together. The membrane of a living cell is very complex
in structure and marvelous in its function. A coacervate or a
protein microsphere may have a pseudomembrane, or a concentration
or orientation of material at the point of contact with the surrounding
medium that gives it the appearance of having a membrane. There
are no chemical bonds linking the macromolecules in this pseudomembrane,
however, and it is easily broken up, and the contents of the coacervate
or microsphere are then released into the medium.
Since these coacervates have this inherent instability, no coacervate
could have existed for a length of time that would have had any
significance whatsoever to the origin of life. Even if we could
imagine a primitive "soup" concentrated sufficiently
in macromolecules to allow coacervates to form, their existence
would have been brief. Any organization that may have formed in
these coacervates by any imaginable process would then have been
irretrievably lost as the contents of the coacervate spilled out
into the medium.
Theories that attempt to account for the origin of stable metabolic
systems from loose macromolecules thus suffer from a number of
fatal weaknesses. First is the requirement that the necessary
macromolecules be produced in sufficiently vast amounts to saturate
the primeval seas to the point where complex coacervates or protenoid
microspheres would precipitate out of solution. Secondly, such
globular products are inherently unstable and would easily be
dissolved or disintegrated, spilling their contents out into the
medium. Geological ages, however, would have been required for
a loose system to evolve into a stable, living cell, assuming
such a process were possible at all. As we have seen above, however,
there is no tendency at all for complex systems to form spontaneously
from simple systems. There is a general natural tendency, on the
other hand, for organized systems to spontaneously disintegrate
to a disordered state. Thirdly, even if it were imagined that
a coacervate of some kind could accrete or inherently possess
some catalytic ability, this catalytic ability would have been
purposeless, and thus useless, and actually destructive.
The Origin of the First Completely
Independent, Stable, Self-Reproducing Unit—The First Living Cell
The simplest form of life known to science contains hundreds
of different kinds of enzymes, thousands of different kinds of
RNA and DNA molecules, and thousands of other kinds of complex
molecules. As mentioned above, it is enclosed within a very complex
membrane and contains a large number of structures many of which
are enclosed within their own membrane. The thousands of chemical
reactions which occur in this cell are strictly coordinated with
one another in time and space in a harmonious system, all working
together towards the self-maintenance and eventual reproduction
of this living cell. Every detail of its structure and function
reveals purposefulness; its incredible complexity and marvelous
capabilities reveal a master plan.
It seems futile enough to attempt to imagine how this amazingly
complex system could have come into existence in the first place
in view of the vast amount of contradictory evidence. Its continued
existence from the very start, however, would have required mechanisms
especially designed for self-maintenance and self-reproduction.
There are numerous injurious processes which would prove fatal
for the cell if repair mechanisms did not exist. These injurious
processes include dimerization of the thymine units in DNA, deamination
of cytosine, adenine, and guanine in DNA and RNA, deamidation
of glutamine and asparagine in proteins, and the production of
toxic peroxides, just to cite a few. The cell is endowed with
complex, defense mechanisms, in each case involving an enzyme
or a series of enzymes. Since these defense mechanisms are absolutely
necessary for the survival of the cell, they would have had to
exist from the very beginning. Life could not have waited until
such mechanisms evolved, for life would be impossible in their
absence.
The ultimate fate of a cell or any living thing is death and
destruction. No dynamically functioning unit therefore can survive
as a species without self-reproduction. The ability to reproduce,
however, would have had to exist from the very beginning in any
system, no matter how simple or complex, that could have given
rise eventually to a living thing. Yet the ability to reproduce
requires such a complex mechanism that the machinery required
for this process would have been the last thing that could
possibly have evolved. This dilemma has no solution and thus poses
the final insuperable barrier to the origin of life by a naturalistic
process.
We conclude that a materialistic, mechanistic, evolutionary origin
of life is directly contradicted by known natural laws and processes.
The origin of life could only have occurred through the acts of
an omniscient Creator independent of and external to the natural
universe. "In the beginning God created" is still the
most up-to-date statement we can make concerning the origin of
life.
REFERENCES
1
D. E. Green and R. F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights into the
Living Process, Academic Press, New York, 1967, p. 407.
2 G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, Pergamon
Press, New York, 1960, p. 150.
3 D. H. Kenyon and G. Steinman, Biochemical Predestination,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1969, p. 245.
4 A. I. Oparin, The Origin of Life on the Earth,
Academic Press, New York, 1957, p. 428.
5 A. I. Oparin, in The Origins of Prebiological
Systems and of their Molecular Matrices, S. W. Fox, Ed., Academic
Press, New York, 1965, p. 331.
6 S. W. Fox in Reference 5, p. 345.
7 R. S. Young in Reference 5, p. 348.
8 Reference 3, p. 250.
*
An elaboration of this material in much greater detail may be
found in Dr. Gish's monograph, "Speculations and Experiments
Related to Theories on the Origin of Life." Creation-Life
Publishers, 1972.
**
Dr. Duane T. Gish is the Vice President of ICR. Dr. Gish has degrees
from both U.C.L.A. and the University of California at Berkeley
(Ph.D., Biochemistry), as well as 18 years experience in biochemical
and biomedical research at Berkeley, Cornell University, and the
Upjohn Company.
[typeID] => 2
[visible] => t
[pdf] =>
[publishURL] => life-theories-origin-biological-order
[publishDate] => 0000-00-00
[authorAsterisk] => f
[domainID] => 1
[publication] =>
[volume] =>
[issue] =>
[page] =>
[author] => Duane Gish, Ph.D.
)
-->
It seems very significant that, of these 101 references to the gospel of Christ, the central reference is I Corinthians 15:1. The passage (I Corinthians 15:1-4) is, above all others, the definition passage for the gospel. It is here defined as the good news "that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures." Thus, the central focus of the true gospel is the substitutionary death, physical burial and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Note also four vital facts concerning this gospel: (1) it is something to be "received" and "believed" by faith, once for all; (2) it is the means by which we are "saved," continually and forever; (3) it is the fact upon which we firmly "stand;" (4) it is emphatically to be defined, understood and preached "according to the scriptures."
Although this is the central and key verse for the gospel, all other 100 occurrences are likewise important, if it is truly to be preached "according to the scriptures." It is especially important to study its first and last occurrences.
The first occurrence is in Matthew 4:23, which speaks of Jesus Himself "preaching the gospel of the kingdom." Thus, at the "beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1), it was vital that those who believed and preached the gospel stress its final consummation, when Jesus Christ would finally be acknowledged by every creature to be "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" (Revelation 19:6).
The last occurrence of the word is in Revelation 14:6, which says the gospel is "the everlasting gospel" that must be preached to all nations and furthermore, that its greatest emphasis must be to "worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters" (Revelation 14:7). Thus, the first occurrence of "gospel" looks ahead to the consummation of all things and the last occurrence stresses the initial creation of all things. As the consummation approaches, it is increasingly important that men look back to the creation. But the creation was saved and the consummation assured when the great Creator and Consummator paid the infinite price for the world's redemption, when He died on the cross and rose again.
The gospel thus entails the full scope of the work of Jesus Christ, from creation to consummation, involving the whole sweep of His redemptive purpose in history. Only this is the gospel "according to the scriptures." One does not truly preach the gospel without emphasizing both the final consummation of God's purpose in creation and also the great fact of His marvelous creation itself, as well as the central core of the gospel, the atoning death and triumphant victory over death achieved by the incarnate Creator and Redeemer.
The same threefold work of Christ is expounded in Colossians 1:16-20. "By Him were all things created." Then, "by Him all things are being conserved (or saved)." Finally, "by Him all things are reconciled." Similarly, in Hebrews 1:2, He "made the worlds," then "upholds all things," and ultimately becomes "heir of all things." "For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:36).
The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ therefore encompasses the threefold work of Christ — Creation, Conservation, Consummation — past, present and future. One preaches a gospel with no foundation if he neglects or distorts the creation, a gospel with no power if he omits the cross, and a gospel with no hope if he ignores or denies the coming kingdom. He preaches the gospel "according to the scriptures" only if all three are preached in fullness.
In light of these facts, how sadly mistaken are the great numbers of "evangelicals" (a word meaning "those who preach the gospel") who oppose or neglect the doctrine of creation. They tell us not to "waste time on peripheral controversies such as the evolution-creation question — just preach the gospel," not realizing that the gospel includes creation and precludes evolution! They say we should simply "emphasize saving faith, not faith in creation," forgetting that the greatest chapter on faith in the Bible (Hebrews 11) begins by stressing faith in the ex nihilo creation of all things by God's Word (verse 3) as preliminary to meaningful faith in any of His promises (verse 13). They advise us merely to "preach Christ," but ignore the fact that Christ was Creator before He became the Saviour, and that His finished work of salvation is meaningful only in light of His finished work of creation (Hebrews 4:3-10). They may wish, in order to avoid the offense of the true gospel, to regard creation as an unimportant matter, but God considered it so important that it was the subject of His first revelation. The first chapter of Genesis is the foundation of the Bible; if the foundation is undermined, the superstructure soon collapses.
Furthermore, in light of Revelation 14:6, 7, it becomes more important to emphasize creation with every day that passes. Satanic opposition intensifies as the end approaches. The anti-Gospel of anti-Christ can be effectively corrected only by the true gospel of the true Christ.
The Anti-Gospel of Evolution
In contrast to the gospel according to the scriptures, the evolutionary system is a religion diametrically in contrast to Christianity. The true gospel is "good news:" evolution is "bad news." Christ offers purpose and hope for eternity; evolution proffers randomness and uncertainty forever.
In the true gospel, the Lord Jesus Christ is the omniscient Creator. In evolution, God is replaced by natural selection.
"Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any known form of life, there was no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution."1"For the devout of past centuries such perfection of adaptation seemed to provide irrefutable proof of the wisdom of the Creator. For the modern biologist it is evidence for the remarkable effectiveness of natural selection."2Natural selection, however, is powerless to create or change anything by itself, serving only to "select" and "save" those features generated by the remarkable phenomenon known as genetic mutations.
"The process of mutation ultimately furnishes the materials for adaptation to changing environments. Genetic variations which increase the reproductive fitness of a population to its environment are preserved and multiplied by natural selection."3However, mutations are not creative either. They have no purpose or program, but occur strictly at random.
"It remains true to say that we know of no way other than random mutation by which new hereditary variation comes into being."4Natural selection is believed by evolutionists to have eliminated the need for an intelligent Creator, but natural selection must wait for mutations, and mutations depend on chance! The gospel of Christ is one of creative purpose; evolution bids us worship the great god Chance!
The gospel of Christ is "according to the scriptures," which were recorded as "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (II Peter 1:21). The anti-gospel of evolution also has its scriptures, but instead of Moses, David and Paul, its prophets have names like Darwin, Huxley and Dobzhansky — against whom none in the academic world dare speak lest they be excommunicated.
The anti-gospel of evolution, while often professing to be strictly empirical and scientific, is in reality a full-fledged religious system, complete with cosmology, soteriology, ethics and eschatology.
Since man is believed to be the highest achievement of evolution to date, its leading proponents have even elevated man to the position of deity. Evolution has become "incarnate" in man, and thus man can now worship himself, in a formal system of religion called humanism. He not only is the product of evolution but can now even control his future evolution, so he believes.
"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a non-theistic religion, a way of life."5"Man created himself even as he created his culture and thereby he became dependent upon it."6"In giving rise to man, the evolutionary process has, apparently for the first and only time in the history of the Cosmos, become conscious of itself."7That humanism is nothing but evolutionism formalized as man-worship is indicated by one of the founders of the Humanist Association, leading evolutionist Julian Huxley:
"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."8Another founding father of the American Humanist Association was John Dewey, the man more responsible than any other single individual for the secularization and antitheistic bias of the American public education system. Dewey was an evolutionary pantheist, regarding man as the most highly evolved animal and thus as the personification of evolution.
"There are no doubt sufficiently profound distinctions between the ethical process and the cosmic process as it existed prior to man and to the formation of human society. So far as I know, however, all of these differences are summed up in the fact that the process and the forces bound up with the cosmic have come to consciousness in man"9Evolution, or evolutionary humanism, is thus in effect a state-established religion in which the true God of creation has been replaced by random forces and natural selection and then by man himself. That this is essentially the philosophy of the coming anti-Christ and his world government is indicated by many of the prophetic Scriptures.
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 1: 25)." — there shall come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed — who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God — ." (II Thessalonians 2:3,4)."And he shall speak great words against the most High, — and think to change times and laws." (Daniel 7:25)."Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. But in his estate shall he honor the God of forces." (Daniel 11:37, 38)."And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, — and all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him." (Revelation 13:6,7).In addition to its deification of man, evolutionary humanism incorporates all the other attributes of a complete system of religion. Consider the following facts.
(1) It is not merely a theory of biology or anthropology, but rather is a complete cosmology, embracing everything in space and time in its system.
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments."10"Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos — from heavenly bodies to human beings — has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes."11"Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution — a single process of self-transformation."12In this picture of total evolution, the eternal God is replaced by eternal matter, which has through billions of years evolved itself from primeval randomly-moving particles into complex particular people and cultures. The process of "creation" is replaced by random mutations and natural selection.
(2) Evolutionary humanism incorporates a system of soteriology — that is, a doctrine of salvation. In the gospel of Christ, salvation is obtained by grace through faith in the substitutionary death of Christ for man's sins. The anti-gospel, however, proposes that man must save himself.
"Through the unprecedented faculty of long-range foresight, jointly serviced and exercised by us, we can, in securing and advancing our position, increasingly avoid the missteps of blind nature, circumvent its cruelties, reform our own natures, and enhance our own values."13"Evolutionary man can no longer take refuge from his loneliness by creeping for shelter into the arms of a divinized father figure whom he himself has created."14"No deity will save us; we must save ourselves."15(3) Evolution also proposes and endorses a system of "scientific" ethics. The ethical system of the Christian gospel is based on love for Christ and one's fellow men. That of evolutionary humanism is based on whatever is judged, by the scientific and political establishments, to be conducive to further evolutionary progress in human societies. Since these establishments vary in space and time, so do their particular evolutionary ethical systems.
"Suffice it to mention the so-called Social Darwinism, which often sought to justify the inhumanity of man to man, and the biological racism which furnished a fraudulent scientific sanction for the atrocities committed in Hitler's Germany and elsewhere."16"The law of evolution, as formulated by Darwin, provides an explanation of wars between nations, the only reasonable explanation known to us."17The evolutionary basis of racism, imperialism, and economic exploitation are not commonly defended by evolutionists today, but modern evolutionists are no less ready to formulate their own ethical systems, usually in terms of evolutionary socialism.
"The foregoing conclusions represent, I believe, an outgrowth of the thesis of modern humanism, as well as of the study of evolution, that the primary job for man is to promote his own welfare and advancement, both that of his members considered individually and that of the all-inclusive group in due awareness of the world as it is, and on the basis of a naturalistic, scientific ethics."18Christian standards of ethical behavior are, of course, codified and explained in the Bible, and are given by divine revelation for man's guidance and benefit. Evolutionary ethics can never be absolute, but must themselves evolve.
"Thus, human 'goodness' and behavior considered ethical by many societies probably are evolutionary acquisitions of man and require fostering, — An ethical system that basis its premises on absolute pronouncements will not usually be acceptable to those who view human nature by evolutionary criteria."19(4) Evolution even has an eschatology, a doctrine of future things. To considerable degree, of course, this merges with its soteriology, since salvation is not believed to apply to any future life but to this life and this world only. Humanists believe, however, that by manipulation of the evolutionary process, both genetically and sociologically, a glorious future awaits mankind.
"We no longer need be subject to blind external forces but can manipulate the environment and eventually may be able to manipulate our genes."20"Man's unique characteristic among animals is his ability to direct and control his own evolution, and science is his most powerful tool for doing this."21Thus, exactly as does the Christian gospel, the anti-gospel of evolution also has a doctrine of origins, a system of morals and ethics, a way of salvation, and a doctrine of consummation, all of which are polar opposites of the corresponding aspects of the true gospel. Evolution is nothing but a naturalistic religious system, erected in opposition to the gospel of supernatural creation, conservation, and consummation centered in Christ and revealed in Scripture.
References
*Dr. Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of ICR.
[body_edit] =>Before His return to heaven, after His resurrection, the Lord Jesus Christ gave the great commission to all His disciples: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15).
In order to obey this most important commandment, it is essential that believers understand exactly what the gospel is. The word itself (Greek euaggelion) as applied to the true Gospel, occurs 74 times in the New Testament, and a related word (euaggelizo) is translated "preach the gospel" 22 times and "bring glad (or good) tidings" 5 times. The word means "the good news," and in all 101 of the above occurrences is applied to the good news concerning the Lord Jesus Christ.
It seems very significant that, of these 101 references to the gospel of Christ, the central reference is I Corinthians 15:1. The passage (I Corinthians 15:1-4) is, above all others, the definition passage for the gospel. It is here defined as the good news "that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures." Thus, the central focus of the true gospel is the substitutionary death, physical burial and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Note also four vital facts concerning this gospel: (1) it is something to be "received" and "believed" by faith, once for all; (2) it is the means by which we are "saved," continually and forever; (3) it is the fact upon which we firmly "stand;" (4) it is emphatically to be defined, understood and preached "according to the scriptures."
Although this is the central and key verse for the gospel, all other 100 occurrences are likewise important, if it is truly to be preached "according to the scriptures." It is especially important to study its first and last occurrences.
The first occurrence is in Matthew 4:23, which speaks of Jesus Himself "preaching the gospel of the kingdom." Thus, at the "beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1), it was vital that those who believed and preached the gospel stress its final consummation, when Jesus Christ would finally be acknowledged by every creature to be "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" (Revelation 19:6).
The last occurrence of the word is in Revelation 14:6, which says the gospel is "the everlasting gospel" that must be preached to all nations and furthermore, that its greatest emphasis must be to "worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters" (Revelation 14:7). Thus, the first occurrence of "gospel" looks ahead to the consummation of all things and the last occurrence stresses the initial creation of all things. As the consummation approaches, it is increasingly important that men look back to the creation. But the creation was saved and the consummation assured when the great Creator and Consummator paid the infinite price for the world's redemption, when He died on the cross and rose again.
The gospel thus entails the full scope of the work of Jesus Christ, from creation to consummation, involving the whole sweep of His redemptive purpose in history. Only this is the gospel "according to the scriptures." One does not truly preach the gospel without emphasizing both the final consummation of God's purpose in creation and also the great fact of His marvelous creation itself, as well as the central core of the gospel, the atoning death and triumphant victory over death achieved by the incarnate Creator and Redeemer.
The same threefold work of Christ is expounded in Colossians 1:16-20. "By Him were all things created." Then, "by Him all things are being conserved (or saved)." Finally, "by Him all things are reconciled." Similarly, in Hebrews 1:2, He "made the worlds," then "upholds all things," and ultimately becomes "heir of all things." "For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:36).
The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ therefore encompasses the threefold work of Christ — Creation, Conservation, Consummation — past, present and future. One preaches a gospel with no foundation if he neglects or distorts the creation, a gospel with no power if he omits the cross, and a gospel with no hope if he ignores or denies the coming kingdom. He preaches the gospel "according to the scriptures" only if all three are preached in fullness.
In light of these facts, how sadly mistaken are the great numbers of "evangelicals" (a word meaning "those who preach the gospel") who oppose or neglect the doctrine of creation. They tell us not to "waste time on peripheral controversies such as the evolution-creation question — just preach the gospel," not realizing that the gospel includes creation and precludes evolution! They say we should simply "emphasize saving faith, not faith in creation," forgetting that the greatest chapter on faith in the Bible (Hebrews 11) begins by stressing faith in the ex nihilo creation of all things by God's Word (verse 3) as preliminary to meaningful faith in any of His promises (verse 13). They advise us merely to "preach Christ," but ignore the fact that Christ was Creator before He became the Saviour, and that His finished work of salvation is meaningful only in light of His finished work of creation (Hebrews 4:3-10). They may wish, in order to avoid the offense of the true gospel, to regard creation as an unimportant matter, but God considered it so important that it was the subject of His first revelation. The first chapter of Genesis is the foundation of the Bible; if the foundation is undermined, the superstructure soon collapses.
Furthermore, in light of Revelation 14:6, 7, it becomes more important to emphasize creation with every day that passes. Satanic opposition intensifies as the end approaches. The anti-Gospel of anti-Christ can be effectively corrected only by the true gospel of the true Christ.
The Anti-Gospel of Evolution
In contrast to the gospel according to the scriptures, the evolutionary system is a religion diametrically in contrast to Christianity. The true gospel is "good news:" evolution is "bad news." Christ offers purpose and hope for eternity; evolution proffers randomness and uncertainty forever.
In the true gospel, the Lord Jesus Christ is the omniscient Creator. In evolution, God is replaced by natural selection.
"Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any known form of life, there was no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution."1"For the devout of past centuries such perfection of adaptation seemed to provide irrefutable proof of the wisdom of the Creator. For the modern biologist it is evidence for the remarkable effectiveness of natural selection."2Natural selection, however, is powerless to create or change anything by itself, serving only to "select" and "save" those features generated by the remarkable phenomenon known as genetic mutations.
"The process of mutation ultimately furnishes the materials for adaptation to changing environments. Genetic variations which increase the reproductive fitness of a population to its environment are preserved and multiplied by natural selection."3However, mutations are not creative either. They have no purpose or program, but occur strictly at random.
"It remains true to say that we know of no way other than random mutation by which new hereditary variation comes into being."4Natural selection is believed by evolutionists to have eliminated the need for an intelligent Creator, but natural selection must wait for mutations, and mutations depend on chance! The gospel of Christ is one of creative purpose; evolution bids us worship the great god Chance!
The gospel of Christ is "according to the scriptures," which were recorded as "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (II Peter 1:21). The anti-gospel of evolution also has its scriptures, but instead of Moses, David and Paul, its prophets have names like Darwin, Huxley and Dobzhansky — against whom none in the academic world dare speak lest they be excommunicated.
The anti-gospel of evolution, while often professing to be strictly empirical and scientific, is in reality a full-fledged religious system, complete with cosmology, soteriology, ethics and eschatology.
Since man is believed to be the highest achievement of evolution to date, its leading proponents have even elevated man to the position of deity. Evolution has become "incarnate" in man, and thus man can now worship himself, in a formal system of religion called humanism. He not only is the product of evolution but can now even control his future evolution, so he believes.
"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a non-theistic religion, a way of life."5"Man created himself even as he created his culture and thereby he became dependent upon it."6"In giving rise to man, the evolutionary process has, apparently for the first and only time in the history of the Cosmos, become conscious of itself."7That humanism is nothing but evolutionism formalized as man-worship is indicated by one of the founders of the Humanist Association, leading evolutionist Julian Huxley:
"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."8Another founding father of the American Humanist Association was John Dewey, the man more responsible than any other single individual for the secularization and antitheistic bias of the American public education system. Dewey was an evolutionary pantheist, regarding man as the most highly evolved animal and thus as the personification of evolution.
"There are no doubt sufficiently profound distinctions between the ethical process and the cosmic process as it existed prior to man and to the formation of human society. So far as I know, however, all of these differences are summed up in the fact that the process and the forces bound up with the cosmic have come to consciousness in man"9Evolution, or evolutionary humanism, is thus in effect a state-established religion in which the true God of creation has been replaced by random forces and natural selection and then by man himself. That this is essentially the philosophy of the coming anti-Christ and his world government is indicated by many of the prophetic Scriptures.
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 1: 25)." — there shall come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed — who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God — ." (II Thessalonians 2:3,4)."And he shall speak great words against the most High, — and think to change times and laws." (Daniel 7:25)."Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. But in his estate shall he honor the God of forces." (Daniel 11:37, 38)."And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, — and all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him." (Revelation 13:6,7).In addition to its deification of man, evolutionary humanism incorporates all the other attributes of a complete system of religion. Consider the following facts.
(1) It is not merely a theory of biology or anthropology, but rather is a complete cosmology, embracing everything in space and time in its system.
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments."10"Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos — from heavenly bodies to human beings — has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes."11"Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution — a single process of self-transformation."12In this picture of total evolution, the eternal God is replaced by eternal matter, which has through billions of years evolved itself from primeval randomly-moving particles into complex particular people and cultures. The process of "creation" is replaced by random mutations and natural selection.
(2) Evolutionary humanism incorporates a system of soteriology — that is, a doctrine of salvation. In the gospel of Christ, salvation is obtained by grace through faith in the substitutionary death of Christ for man's sins. The anti-gospel, however, proposes that man must save himself.
"Through the unprecedented faculty of long-range foresight, jointly serviced and exercised by us, we can, in securing and advancing our position, increasingly avoid the missteps of blind nature, circumvent its cruelties, reform our own natures, and enhance our own values."13"Evolutionary man can no longer take refuge from his loneliness by creeping for shelter into the arms of a divinized father figure whom he himself has created."14"No deity will save us; we must save ourselves."15(3) Evolution also proposes and endorses a system of "scientific" ethics. The ethical system of the Christian gospel is based on love for Christ and one's fellow men. That of evolutionary humanism is based on whatever is judged, by the scientific and political establishments, to be conducive to further evolutionary progress in human societies. Since these establishments vary in space and time, so do their particular evolutionary ethical systems.
"Suffice it to mention the so-called Social Darwinism, which often sought to justify the inhumanity of man to man, and the biological racism which furnished a fraudulent scientific sanction for the atrocities committed in Hitler's Germany and elsewhere."16"The law of evolution, as formulated by Darwin, provides an explanation of wars between nations, the only reasonable explanation known to us."17The evolutionary basis of racism, imperialism, and economic exploitation are not commonly defended by evolutionists today, but modern evolutionists are no less ready to formulate their own ethical systems, usually in terms of evolutionary socialism.
"The foregoing conclusions represent, I believe, an outgrowth of the thesis of modern humanism, as well as of the study of evolution, that the primary job for man is to promote his own welfare and advancement, both that of his members considered individually and that of the all-inclusive group in due awareness of the world as it is, and on the basis of a naturalistic, scientific ethics."18Christian standards of ethical behavior are, of course, codified and explained in the Bible, and are given by divine revelation for man's guidance and benefit. Evolutionary ethics can never be absolute, but must themselves evolve.
"Thus, human 'goodness' and behavior considered ethical by many societies probably are evolutionary acquisitions of man and require fostering, — An ethical system that basis its premises on absolute pronouncements will not usually be acceptable to those who view human nature by evolutionary criteria."19(4) Evolution even has an eschatology, a doctrine of future things. To considerable degree, of course, this merges with its soteriology, since salvation is not believed to apply to any future life but to this life and this world only. Humanists believe, however, that by manipulation of the evolutionary process, both genetically and sociologically, a glorious future awaits mankind.
"We no longer need be subject to blind external forces but can manipulate the environment and eventually may be able to manipulate our genes."20"Man's unique characteristic among animals is his ability to direct and control his own evolution, and science is his most powerful tool for doing this."21Thus, exactly as does the Christian gospel, the anti-gospel of evolution also has a doctrine of origins, a system of morals and ethics, a way of salvation, and a doctrine of consummation, all of which are polar opposites of the corresponding aspects of the true gospel. Evolution is nothing but a naturalistic religious system, erected in opposition to the gospel of supernatural creation, conservation, and consummation centered in Christ and revealed in Scripture.
References
*Dr. Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of ICR.
[typeID] => 2 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => creation-anti-gospel-evolution [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => t [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
The tranquil-flood theory is even more ridiculous. It is difficult to believe anyone could take it seriously and yet a number of modern evangelical geologists do believe in this idea. Even local floods are violent phenomena and uniformitarian geologists today believe they are responsible for most of the geologic deposits of the earth’s crust. A universal Flood that could come and go softly, leaving no geologic evidence of its passage, would require an extensive complex of miracles for its accomplishment. Anyone with the slightest understanding of the hydraulics of moving water and the hydrodynamic forces associated with it would know that a world-wide "tranquil" flood is about as reasonable a concept as a tranquil explosion!
As far as science is concerned, it should be remembered that events of the past are not reproducible, and are, therefore, inaccessible to the scientific method. Neither uniformitarianism nor catastrophism can actually be proved scientifically. Nevertheless, the Flood model fits all the geologic facts more directly and simply, with a smaller number of qualifications and secondary assumptions, than does the uniformitarian model.
An obvious indication of global water activity is the very existence of sedimentary rocks all over the world which, by definition, were formed by the erosion, transportation, and deposition of sediments by moving water with the sediments gradually converted into stone after they had been deposited.
Similarly, an obvious indicator of catastrophism is the existence of fossils in the sedimentary rocks. The depositional processes must have been rapid, or fossils could not have been preserved in them.
"To become fossilized, a plant or animal must usually have hard parts, such as bone, shell, or wood. It must be buried quickly to prevent decay and must be undisturbed throughout the long process."5The importance of this fact is obvious when one realizes that the identification of the geologic "age" of any given sedimentary rock depends solely upon the assemblage of fossils which it contains. The age does not depend on radiometric dating, as is obvious from the fact that the geologic age system had been completely worked out and most major formations dated before radioactivity was even discovered. Neither does the age depend upon the mineralogic or petrologic character of a rock, as is obvious from the fact that rocks of all types of composition, structure, and degree of hardness can be found in any "age". It does not depend upon vertical position in the local geologic strata, since rocks of any "age" may and do rest horizontally and conformably on rocks of any other age. No, a rock is dated solely by its fossils.
"The only chronometric scale applicable in geologic history for the stratigraphic classification of rocks and for dating geologic events exactly is furnished by the fossils. Owing to the irreversibility of evolution, they offer an unambiguous time-scale for relative age determinations and for world-wide correlation of rocks."6Thus, the existence and identification of distinctive geologic ages is based on fossils in the sedimentary rocks. On the other hand, the very existence of fossils in sedimentary rocks is prima facie evidence that each such fossiliferous rock was formed by aqueous catastrophism. The one question, therefore, is whether the rocks were formed by a great multiplicity of local catastrophes scattered through many ages, or by a great complex of local catastrophes all conjoined contemporaneously in one single age, terminated by the cataclysm.
The latter is the most likely. Each distinctive stratum was laid down quickly, since it obviously represents a uniform set of water flow conditions, and such uniformity never persists very long. Each set of strata in a given formation must also have been deposited in rapid succession, or there would be evidence of unconformity—that is, periods of uplift and erosion—at the various interfaces.
Where unconformity does exist, say at the top of a formation, there may well have been an interval of uplift or tilting, at that location. followed by either sub-aerial or sub-marine erosion for a time. However, since such formations invariably grade laterally into other formations (no unconformity, is worldwide), sooner or later one will come to a location where there is a conformable relationship between this formation and the one above it. Thus, each formation is succeeded somewhere by another one which was deposited rapidly after the first one ... and so on throughout the entire geologic column.
Thus, there is no room anywhere for long ages. Each formation must have been produced rapidly, as evidenced by both its fossils and its depositional characteristics, and each formation must have been followed rapidly by another one, which was also formed rapidly! The whole sequence, therefore, must have been formed rapidly, exactly as the Flood model postulates.
But, then. what about the geologic ages? Remember that the only means of identifying these ages is by fossils and fossils speak of rapid formation. Even assuming a very slow formation of these beds, however, how can fossils tell the age of a rock?
Obviously, fossils could be distinctive time markers only if the various kinds each had lived in different ages. But how can we know which fossils lived in which ages? No scientists were there to observe them, and true science requires observation. Furthermore, by analogy with the present (and uniformitarianism is supposed to be able to decipher the past in terms of the present), many different kinds of plants and animals are living in the present world, including even the "primitive" one-celled organisms with which evolution is supposed to have begun. Why, therefore, isn’t it better to assume that all major kinds also lived together in past ages as well? Some kinds, such as the dinosaurs, have become extinct, but practically all present-day kinds of organisms are also found in the fossil world.
The only reason for thinking that different fossils should represent different ages is the assumption of evolution. If evolution is really true, then of course fossils should provide an excellent means for identifying the various ages, an "unambiguous time-scale," as Schindewolf put it. Hedberg says:
"Fossils have furnished, through their record of the evolution of life on this planet, an amazingly effective key to the relative positioning of strata in widely-separated regions."7The use of fossils as time-markers thus depends completely on "their record of evolution." But, then, how do we know that evolution is true? Why, because of the fossil record!
"Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."8So the only proof of evolution is based on the assumption of evolution! The system of evolution arranges the fossils, the fossils date the rocks, and the resulting system of fossil-dated rocks proves evolution. Around and around we go.
How much more simple and direct it would be to explain the fossil-bearing rocks as the record in stone of the destruction of the antediluvian world by the great Flood. The various fossil assemblages represent, not evolutionary stages developing over many ages, but rather ecological habitats in various parts of the world in one age. Fossils of simple marine invertebrate animals are normally found at the lowest elevations in the geologic strata for the simple reason that they live at the lowest elevations. Fossils or birds and mammals are found only at the higher elevations because they live at higher elevations and also because they are more mobile and could escape burial longer. Human fossils are extremely rare because men would only very rarely be trapped and buried in flood sediments at all, because of their high mobility. The sediments of the "ice-age" at the highest levels are explained in terms of the drastically changed climates caused by the Flood.
The flood theory of geology,9 which was so obvious and persuasive to the founders of geology, is thus once again beginning to be recognized as the only theory which is fully consistent with the actual facts of geology, as well as with the testimony of Scripture.
REFERENCES
Henry M. Morris: The Genesis Record (San Diego, Institute for Creation Research, 1976) 716 pp.
Additional Resources:
The Genesis Flood by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb (1961, 518 pp.)
The Genesis Record by Henry M. Morris (1976, 716 pp.)
The Beginning of the World by Henry M. Morris (2nd ed. 1991, 184 pp.)
* Henry M. Morris is Director of the Institute for Creation Research, as well as the Academic Vice-President of Christian Heritage College. He received his Ph.D. in hydraulics, with minors in geology and mathematics. He has spent thirty years in education and research, including thirteen years as Professor of Hydraulic Engineering and Chairman of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He is also President of the Creation Research Society.
[body_edit] =>In the early days of geology, especially during the 17th and 18th centuries, the dominant explanation for the sedimentary rocks and their fossilized contents was that they had been laid down in the great Flood of the days of Noah. This was the view of Steno, the "father of stratigraphy", whose principles of stratigraphic interpretation are still followed today, and of John Woodward, Sir Isaac Newton’s hand-picked successor at Cambridge, whose studies on sedimentary processes laid the foundation for modern sedimentology and geomorphology. These men and the other flood geologists of their day were careful scientists, thoroughly acquainted with the sedimentary rocks and the geophysical processes which formed them. In common with most other scientists of their day, they believed in God and the divine authority of the Bible. Evolution and related naturalistic speculations had been confined largely to the writings of social philosophers and rationalistic theologians.
Toward the end of the 18th century, and especially in the first half of the 19th century, the ancient pagan evolutionary philosophies began to be revived and promoted by the various socialistic revolutionary movements of the times. These could make little headway, however, as long as the scientists were predominantly creationists. Evolution obviously required aeons of geologic time and the scientific community, including the great Isaac Newton himself, was committed to the Usher chronology, with its recent special creation and worldwide Flood.
Therefore, it was necessary, first of all, that the Flood be displaced as the framework of geologic interpretation, so that earth history could once again, as in the days of the ancient Greek and Oriental philosophers, be expanded into great reaches and cycles of time over endless ages. Geologic catastrophism must be, at all costs replaced by uniformitarianism, which would emphasize the slow, uniform processes or the present as a sufficient explanation for all earth structures and past history. This was accomplished in two stages: first. the single cataclysm of the Flood was replaced by the multiple catastrophes and new creations of Cuvier and Buckland, each separated from the next by a long period of uniform processes; second, these periodic catastrophes were gradually de-emphasized and the uniformitarian intervals enlarged until the latter finally incorporated the entire history.
It is significant that this uniformitarian revolution was led, not by professional scientific geologists, but by amateurs, men such as Buckland (a theologian), Cuvier (an anatomist), Buffon (a lawyer), Hutton (an agriculturalist), Smith (a surveyor), Chambers (a journalist), Lyell (a lawyer), and others of similar variegated backgrounds. The acceptance of Lyell’s uniformitarianism laid the foundation for the sudden success of Darwinism in the decade following the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859. Darwin frequently acknowledged his debt to Lyell, who he said gave him the necessary time required for natural selection to produce meaningful evolutionary results.
Nevertheless, the actual facts or geology still favored catastrophism, and flood geology never died completely. Although the uniformitarian philosophers could point to certain difficulties in the Biblical geology of their predecessors, there were still greater difficulties in uniformitarianism. Once uniformitarianism had served its purpose—namely, that of selling the scientific community and the general public on the great age of the earth—then geologists could again use local catastrophic processes whenever required for specific geologic interpretations. Stephen Gould has expressed it this way:
"Methodological uniformitarianism was useful only when science was debating the status of the supernatural in its realm." 1Heylmun goes even further:
"The fact is, the doctrine of uniformitarianism is no more ‘proved’ than some of the early ideas of world-wide cataclysms have been disproved."2With adequate time apparently available, assisted by man’s natural inclination to escape from God if possible, Darwin’s theory of evolution by chance variation and natural selection was eagerly accepted by the learned world. Pockets of scientific resistance in the religious community were quickly neutralized by key clerical endorsements of the "day-age theory", which seemingly permitted Christians to hang on to Genesis while at the same time riding the popular wave of long ages and evolutionary progress. For those fundamentalists who insisted that the creation week required a literal interpretation, the "gap theory" ostensibly permitted them to do so merely by inserting the geologic ages in an imaginary gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, thus ignoring their evolutionary implications.
The Biblical Deluge was similarly shorn of scientific significance by reinterpreting it in terms of a "local flood" or, for those few people who insisted that the Genesis narrative required a universal inundation, a "tranquil flood". Lyell himself proposed a worldwide tranquil flood that left no geological traces. In any case, the field of earth history, was taken over almost completely by evolutionists.
In turn, this capitulation of the scientists to evolution was an enormous boon to the social revolutionaries, who could now proclaim widely that their theories of social change were grounded in natural science. For example, Karl Marx and the Communists quickly aligned themselves with evolutionary geology and biology, Marx even asking to dedicate his Das Kapital to Charles Darwin.
"However harshly a philosopher may judge this characterization of Marx’s theory (i.e., that Marxism unites science and revolution intrinsically and inseparably) an historian can hardly fail to agree that Marx’s claim to give scientific guidance to those who would transform society has been one of the chief reasons for his doctrine’s enormous influence."3The "science" referred to in the above is, in context, nothing but naturalistic evolution based on uniformitarian geology. Similarly, Nietzschean racism, Freudian amoralism, and military imperialism all had their roots in the same soil and grew in the same climate.
Yet all the while the foundation was nothing but sand. Uniformitarian geology was contrary to both the Bible and to observable science. Now, a hundred years later, the humanistic and naturalistic culture erected upon that foundation is beginning to crumble, and men are beginning again to look critically at the foundation.
The two Biblical compromise positions are now widely recognized as unacceptable, either theologically or scientifically. A brief discussion of the fallacies of the "day-age" and "gap" theories, as well as "theistic evolution" and "progressive creation" appeared in Impact Article No. 5, of the ICR ACTS & FACTS, "Evolution and the Bible."
The local-flood theory is even less defensible. The entire Biblical account of the Flood is absurd if read in a local-flood context. For example, there was obviously no need for any kind of an ark if the flood were only a local flood. Yet the Bible describes it as a huge vessel with a volumetric capacity which can be shown to be equal to that of over 500 standard railroad stock cars! According to the account, the ark floated freely over all the high mountains and finally came to rest, five months later, on the mountains of Ararat. The highest of these mountains today is 17,000 feet in elevation, and a flood which could cover such a mountain six months or more was no local flood!
Furthermore, God’s promise never to send such a flood again, sealed with the continuing testimony of the rainbow, has been broken again and again if the Flood was only a local flood.
A list of 96 reasons why the Flood must be understood as worldwide is given in one of the writer’s books.4
The tranquil-flood theory is even more ridiculous. It is difficult to believe anyone could take it seriously and yet a number of modern evangelical geologists do believe in this idea. Even local floods are violent phenomena and uniformitarian geologists today believe they are responsible for most of the geologic deposits of the earth’s crust. A universal Flood that could come and go softly, leaving no geologic evidence of its passage, would require an extensive complex of miracles for its accomplishment. Anyone with the slightest understanding of the hydraulics of moving water and the hydrodynamic forces associated with it would know that a world-wide "tranquil" flood is about as reasonable a concept as a tranquil explosion!
As far as science is concerned, it should be remembered that events of the past are not reproducible, and are, therefore, inaccessible to the scientific method. Neither uniformitarianism nor catastrophism can actually be proved scientifically. Nevertheless, the Flood model fits all the geologic facts more directly and simply, with a smaller number of qualifications and secondary assumptions, than does the uniformitarian model.
An obvious indication of global water activity is the very existence of sedimentary rocks all over the world which, by definition, were formed by the erosion, transportation, and deposition of sediments by moving water with the sediments gradually converted into stone after they had been deposited.
Similarly, an obvious indicator of catastrophism is the existence of fossils in the sedimentary rocks. The depositional processes must have been rapid, or fossils could not have been preserved in them.
"To become fossilized, a plant or animal must usually have hard parts, such as bone, shell, or wood. It must be buried quickly to prevent decay and must be undisturbed throughout the long process."5The importance of this fact is obvious when one realizes that the identification of the geologic "age" of any given sedimentary rock depends solely upon the assemblage of fossils which it contains. The age does not depend on radiometric dating, as is obvious from the fact that the geologic age system had been completely worked out and most major formations dated before radioactivity was even discovered. Neither does the age depend upon the mineralogic or petrologic character of a rock, as is obvious from the fact that rocks of all types of composition, structure, and degree of hardness can be found in any "age". It does not depend upon vertical position in the local geologic strata, since rocks of any "age" may and do rest horizontally and conformably on rocks of any other age. No, a rock is dated solely by its fossils.
"The only chronometric scale applicable in geologic history for the stratigraphic classification of rocks and for dating geologic events exactly is furnished by the fossils. Owing to the irreversibility of evolution, they offer an unambiguous time-scale for relative age determinations and for world-wide correlation of rocks."6Thus, the existence and identification of distinctive geologic ages is based on fossils in the sedimentary rocks. On the other hand, the very existence of fossils in sedimentary rocks is prima facie evidence that each such fossiliferous rock was formed by aqueous catastrophism. The one question, therefore, is whether the rocks were formed by a great multiplicity of local catastrophes scattered through many ages, or by a great complex of local catastrophes all conjoined contemporaneously in one single age, terminated by the cataclysm.
The latter is the most likely. Each distinctive stratum was laid down quickly, since it obviously represents a uniform set of water flow conditions, and such uniformity never persists very long. Each set of strata in a given formation must also have been deposited in rapid succession, or there would be evidence of unconformity—that is, periods of uplift and erosion—at the various interfaces.
Where unconformity does exist, say at the top of a formation, there may well have been an interval of uplift or tilting, at that location. followed by either sub-aerial or sub-marine erosion for a time. However, since such formations invariably grade laterally into other formations (no unconformity, is worldwide), sooner or later one will come to a location where there is a conformable relationship between this formation and the one above it. Thus, each formation is succeeded somewhere by another one which was deposited rapidly after the first one ... and so on throughout the entire geologic column.
Thus, there is no room anywhere for long ages. Each formation must have been produced rapidly, as evidenced by both its fossils and its depositional characteristics, and each formation must have been followed rapidly by another one, which was also formed rapidly! The whole sequence, therefore, must have been formed rapidly, exactly as the Flood model postulates.
But, then. what about the geologic ages? Remember that the only means of identifying these ages is by fossils and fossils speak of rapid formation. Even assuming a very slow formation of these beds, however, how can fossils tell the age of a rock?
Obviously, fossils could be distinctive time markers only if the various kinds each had lived in different ages. But how can we know which fossils lived in which ages? No scientists were there to observe them, and true science requires observation. Furthermore, by analogy with the present (and uniformitarianism is supposed to be able to decipher the past in terms of the present), many different kinds of plants and animals are living in the present world, including even the "primitive" one-celled organisms with which evolution is supposed to have begun. Why, therefore, isn’t it better to assume that all major kinds also lived together in past ages as well? Some kinds, such as the dinosaurs, have become extinct, but practically all present-day kinds of organisms are also found in the fossil world.
The only reason for thinking that different fossils should represent different ages is the assumption of evolution. If evolution is really true, then of course fossils should provide an excellent means for identifying the various ages, an "unambiguous time-scale," as Schindewolf put it. Hedberg says:
"Fossils have furnished, through their record of the evolution of life on this planet, an amazingly effective key to the relative positioning of strata in widely-separated regions."7The use of fossils as time-markers thus depends completely on "their record of evolution." But, then, how do we know that evolution is true? Why, because of the fossil record!
"Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."8So the only proof of evolution is based on the assumption of evolution! The system of evolution arranges the fossils, the fossils date the rocks, and the resulting system of fossil-dated rocks proves evolution. Around and around we go.
How much more simple and direct it would be to explain the fossil-bearing rocks as the record in stone of the destruction of the antediluvian world by the great Flood. The various fossil assemblages represent, not evolutionary stages developing over many ages, but rather ecological habitats in various parts of the world in one age. Fossils of simple marine invertebrate animals are normally found at the lowest elevations in the geologic strata for the simple reason that they live at the lowest elevations. Fossils or birds and mammals are found only at the higher elevations because they live at higher elevations and also because they are more mobile and could escape burial longer. Human fossils are extremely rare because men would only very rarely be trapped and buried in flood sediments at all, because of their high mobility. The sediments of the "ice-age" at the highest levels are explained in terms of the drastically changed climates caused by the Flood.
The flood theory of geology,9 which was so obvious and persuasive to the founders of geology, is thus once again beginning to be recognized as the only theory which is fully consistent with the actual facts of geology, as well as with the testimony of Scripture.
REFERENCES
Henry M. Morris: The Genesis Record (San Diego, Institute for Creation Research, 1976) 716 pp.
Additional Resources:
The Genesis Flood by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb (1961, 518 pp.)
The Genesis Record by Henry M. Morris (1976, 716 pp.)
The Beginning of the World by Henry M. Morris (2nd ed. 1991, 184 pp.)
* Henry M. Morris is Director of the Institute for Creation Research, as well as the Academic Vice-President of Christian Heritage College. He received his Ph.D. in hydraulics, with minors in geology and mathematics. He has spent thirty years in education and research, including thirteen years as Professor of Hydraulic Engineering and Chairman of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He is also President of the Creation Research Society.
[typeID] => 2 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => geology-flood [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->
