Creation/Evolution and the First Law

The first question in the Creation vs. Evolution debate is how the universe came into existence.  The Bible says that a Being Who is not subject to natural laws or time created it all from nothing.  Many refuse to accept this ‘miraculous’ explanation.

Those who do so, readily accept an equally miraculous explanation from evolution called the “Big Bang”.   According to this model, all of the present matter and energy of the universe became concentrated in a dot no larger than the period of a sentence.  This mass then exploded, hurling matter and energy outward to eventually form earth and other stellar bodies.

The first question to ask of the evolutionist is from where did this matter and energy originate?  Evolutionists insist that everything must have a “natural” origination.  That is, that everything in the universe today came about through natural processes overcoming all of the evolutionary obstacles by vast eons of time.

Since evolutionists insist upon naturalism alone for all explanations, then we must put their explanations into the crucible of natural law.  The First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy can never be created or destroyed, but only converted between various forms.  Since this is true, then it couldn’t have spontaneously formed itself out of nothing!  In order to get their cosmic egg for the Big Bang, the evolutionist must resort to ‘just so’ arguments that are not scientific.

So evolution has no scientific explanation for the origination of matter and energy.  Next up, what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says about the probability of evolutionary processes.

Macroevolution v. Microevolution – There is a Difference

Macroevolution v. Microevolution…There is a Difference

 

            Macro means large.  Micro means small. So Macrocosm refers to the whole earth or universe while Microcosm refers to a miniature version of the former. 

            When Charles Darwin wrote his famous book, “The Origin of Species”, which has served evolution’s cause of being the sole view heard in the science classroom, he devoted much attention to his observations about finches in the Galapagos Islands.  In this, he gave particular attention to the great variety of beaks in these Galapagos finches.  There were short and long beaks, thin and broad beaks, and from this observation, Darwin formulated his famous hypothesis about macroevolution.

            From his observations, Darwin came to believe that broad categories of living things have changed into completely new categories of life.  This requires a huge quantum jump across rigid biological barriers.   So the standard biology textbook of today teaches the evolutionary dogma that certain fish evolved (changed) to such an extent that they were able to crawl out of their aquatic existence and take up an entirely new existence on land as amphibians; that amphibians later were able to cross vast biologic barriers to become reptiles; and that reptiles were able to cross the barriers twice to become birds and mammals.   Macroevolution would require critical alterations in genetic information to compel the stupendous changes in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry that are needed to generate entirely new categories of life.  Note that these “critical alterations” are not necessarily about the percent similarity of DNA nucleotide sequences or the resulting amino acid sequences of proteins, but rather, the key gene alterations needed to produce the huge differences required for changes on the scale of macroevolution. 

            It is not uncommon for science textbooks and the media to use differences among individuals within a species as evidence of macroevolution.  Darwin’s whole premise was that the finches showed great variety in their beaks and so that was evidence of their macroevolution from former life forms and their progression toward even newer ones.  I have read in science textbooks where the variety in sizes of dogs and horses was promoted as evidence of macroevolution.  The keen student would note that the Chihuahua and the Great Dane are both very much still dogs.  Another false evidence for macroevolution that has been used is when insect resistance to insecticides or bacterial resistance to antibiotics is spoken of as being evidence for macroevolution.   A typical statement in the media or textbook would go something like the following:  “The E. coli evolved into an antibiotic resistant form.”   Though the statement is technically correct (change has occurred) it leaves the nonscientific reader or student with the impression that a whole new life form has been formed.

            Every species has great genetic potential to make small changes that allow it to adapt to its environment.  So when a certain antibiotic is applied too much, certain individual organisms have a statistical probability of having switched a gene on or off which protects them from the antibiotic, and then allows them to advantageously reproduce relative to others of that same species.  But it is extremely important to note that the resistant version is still the same species as it was formerly.  That is, an antibiotic resistant E. coli bacteria is still very much E. coli in every other respect.   It hasn’t crossed the vast barrier that would make it an entirely new category of life.    Similarly, if certain grasshoppers acquire resistance to an agricultural insecticide, they will be found upon careful examination, to still be the same species of grasshopper as they were formerly, as determined by anatomy, physiology, and genetics.    These resistant hoppers will still freely inter mate with nonresistant hoppers, proving that their species has not changed and they have not become a new category of living creature.   Furthermore, these small interspecies changes are often reversible, proving that no macro evolutionary barrier has been crossed.

            The great variety of individuals that can and does occur within a species is properly called microevolution.  This word specifies that only small changes have occurred.  No  professional creation scientist disputes these small changes within the individuals of any given species.  What they do dispute, is that the magnitude of change can ever carry beyond biological barriers that are fixed by genetics into entirely new phyla or even broader categories of life.

            Reader, do not be duped by careless, ignorant or even disingenuous examples given as “proofs” for evolution that are actually very minor fluctuations in genetic expression of creatures, great or small, within the established boundaries of the species.  Human beings are subdivided into races based upon skin color and a few other features but every one of us are fully human.  That’s all we have ever been and that’s all we’ll ever be!

Evolution vs. Disorder

Evolution vs. Disorder

By Gene S. Foster, M.S.

            Science is all about Hypotheses, Experimentation, Observation, Repetition and final Evaluation. 

            Let’s do a simple but useful thought experiment.  Our hypothesis will be that a roll of quarters all neatly stacked together, when thrown into the air will land in the original stacked position.  So we throw the quarters, let them land, and then we evaluate the results.   What do we find?  Quarters strewn all over the room.  Well, science is about replication of experimental data so let’s try it again.  And again.  And yet again.  Same results every time.  After 100 tosses we must conclude that our original hypothesis that the quarters will land all stacked up together is false.  In fact, we must conclude, based upon our experimental data, that the quarters will land in a state of disorder every single time that we toss them.  What if we throw the quarters every minute for a thousand years?  Will they ever land in the stacked up position?  No!  What if we continue throwing them for a million years?  or a billion years?  Will there ever be an incident in which they land in a stacked position?  No – they never will.  The only way we will be able to get them to stay together in the stacked  position is if we somehow attach them to each other so they can’t separate - but that is fudging the data.

            Why is this?  There is a basic law of science called the Second Law of  Thermodynamics that says that energy always flows toward a state of disorder or randomness.  Because of this law, things don’t spontaneously become more organized on their own.  Organization requires an agent external to the system, like our quarters, to put it into order.  So the quarters have to be stacked by someone, and if they aren’t, they go to disorder every time.   That’s why we have to clean our houses to bring it from a state of randomness (“a mess”) to a state of  order (“cleanliness”).   On a larger scale, we have to engineer and manufacture things to bring order into our world out of its natural state of chaos.

            Evolutionists fantasize that the reverse of the Second Law has occurred in the past  which resulted in random forces becoming workable organized living systems without any external, intelligent agency (God) performing the organization.  According to the evolution fairy tale, basic elements such as Nitrogen, Carbon and Oxygen somehow defeated the disorganizing forces in order to assemble themselves randomly into useful molecules.  Then these molecules continued assembling themselves, always without purpose and outside agent, into useful molecules.   This occurred in a never ending cycle of fortuitous events until useful proteins and carbohydrates were formed.   Then complex cells somehow formed the essential subunits of the first living cell.  This required, as a minimum, the complex cell membrane or wall, energy conversion micro machinery (mitochondria) , information storage and transfer systems (DNA/RNA), and molecular micro assembly factories (ribosomes).  All of this also required specially designed proteins to carry raw materials to the assembly points and the products away from them.   Other complex proteins (enzymes) had to be ready to initiate and propagate chemical reactions.  Without these bare minimum systems in place, there never could have been a first cell, and without that first cell there could never be another cell.   And all of this had to be done through entirely spontaneous events, since evolution allows for no Creator/ Being as agent.   To further complicate the requirements, all of the systems and intermediary molecules had to evolve to completion and be present  at  the same time and place in order for that first cell to be formed.  This is because destructive forces were always present, as they are today, acting against every living thing.  In other words, the membrane couldn’t form and then be stored for 100 million years while another system was being evolved to work with it.

            If the absurdity that a cell could spontaneously form isn’t enough for you to believe,  evolutionists then tell you that that first cell gradually formed into systems, then simple organisms, then more complex organisms, until finally the super complex living organisms that we know today were produced.  Every upward step of this process over billions of years worked in complete defiance of the basic laws of science and mathmatics:  The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.   And so, voila, like magic, evolutionists tell us that we have highly complex living creatures and mankind alive today!

            Evolutionists imagine that if an impossible event is tried enough times that eventually something useful will occur.  That is why they insist that the universe is billions of years old despite much evidence to the contrary.  Think back to our experiment with the roll of quarters.  The probability of a roll of quarters that is tossed into the air, landing upright and intact is exactly ZERO!  We know this by experimentions and observations through all of the thousands of years of human experience.  In mathematics, zero times any number is always zero.  Take the largest number that any computer can generate, multiply it by zero, and the result will always be zero!  So an event which has zero chance of succeeding will never occur, not even once, no matter how many billions of years that it has opportunity given to it to succeed! 

            The chance that one functional, living, reproducing cell could be generated is zero.  And the chance that the first cell could be reproduced is zero multiplied by itself trillions and trillions of times over again.  And the result is still ZERO!

            Once upon a time, “scientists” such as Aristotle believed in Spontaneous Generation.  That is, they believed that life spontaneously emerges from nonliving things.  By the 1700s and 1800s, most scientists believed in spontaneous generation.   A few scientists such as Francisco Redi and Louis Pasteur (a creation scientist) did not.   By intelligent experimentation they proved that life can only come from life, and conversely, that nonlife can never produce life.

            Sadly, intelligent people today still persist in the old spontaneous generation argument because that is what evolution must resort to in its explanation of the first living cell.  It is an argument that denies the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and therefore, evolution is fantasy, not science!