The evolutionist will emphatically say no. Belief in Creationism could never be equated with science, they say. The claim is often made that all scientists believe in evolution. For this reason the teaching of evolution must alone be permitted to enter the Science classroom. The study of Creationism is banished from the Science classroom and found only in the Religious Studies classroom.
Consider some salient facts:
I. Evolution simply doesn't have all the science on its side. That is a false claim they make!
There are eminent, present day, scientists who believe in a literal six day creation. A book entitled "In Six Days" was in recent years researched and published containing the views of 50 scientists who were asked to give their personal response to the question: "Why do you believe in a literal six-day biblical creation as the origin of life on earth?"
These 50 modern day scientists have all earned a Doctorate from a state-recognised university in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, South Africa, or Germany. These 50 scientists come from a variety of backgrounds. They include university professors and researchers, geologists, zoologists, biologists, botanists, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, medical researchers, and engineers.
There are other prominent scientists who believe in creation such as:
1. Dr Raymond Damadian who developed the MRI scanner. The Dean of the State University of New York College of Medicine said: …all of MRI rests on the fundamental work that Dr Damadian has done. In 2001 he was given a lifetime achievement award as: the man who invented the MRI scanner. He is on record as saying that his greatest discovery was to find that: the highest purpose a man can find for his life is to serve the will of God.
2. Dr Patrick Young who developed and was the holder of patents relating to Kevlar body armour.
II. Historically some of the greatest scientists of the past believed in a literal six day creation.
Scientists such as:
1. Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) who did so much work in the area of Hydrostatics and developed the Barometer.
2. Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1727) famous for his discovery of the law of universal gravitation and the formation of the three laws of motion. He wrote against those who would push back the date of creation seeking to discredit the system of James Ussher.
3. Michael Faraday (1791–1867) who is universally acknowledged as one of the greatest scientists of all time. He discovered electromagnetic induction and introduced the concept of magnetic lines of force. He invented the generator, giving us the means of electricity.
4. Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) who invented the Wire Telegraph, described as one of the most important milestones in human history. The first words he sent along the line were: What hath God wrought? A quotation taken from Numbers 23:23.
5. James Joule (1818–1889) is known for his many studies on heat flow. His greatest discovery was the value of the constant known as the ‘mechanical equivalent of heat’ making possible the quantitative conversion of heat energy into mechanical energy and vice versa. He is considered the chief founder of the scientific discipline of thermo-dynamics, developing the laws of Thermodynamics. He established that all forms of energy were basically the same and interchangeable, ie. the first law of thermo-dynamics. The Joule – Thomson effect, discovered with William Thomson, later known as Lord Kelvin, in 1852, led to the development of the refrigerator and to the science of cryogenics.
6. Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) was a French chemist and microbiologist renowned for his discovery of the principles of Bacteriology; Biochemistry; Microbial Fermentation; Pasteurisation; Sterilisation and Immunisation. He did so much work on confirming the germ theory of disease and demolishing the then prevalent evolutionary concept of spontaneous generation. He was chiefly known for work on the processes of pasteurisation and sterilisation. Some concede him to be the greatest biologist of all time.
In 1859, the French Academy of Science sponsored a Science Fair, the goal being to prove or disprove spontaneous generation. A young Louis Pasteur's award winning experiment was a clever variation of earlier experiments. Pasteur filled a long necked flask with meat broth. He then heated the glass neck and bent it into an ‘S’ shape. Air could reach the broth, but gravity acted to trap airborne micro-organisms in the curve of the neck. He then boiled the broth. After a time, no micro-organisms had formed in the broth. When the flask was tipped so that the broth reached the microorganisms trapped in the neck, the broth quickly became cloudy with microscopic life. Thus, Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation. Furthermore, Pasteur proved that some microorganisms are airborne.
7. John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) and his work on Electronics. He developed the first Electron tube and also worked on the Thermionic valve.
Do evolutionists deny that these great scientists held to literal six day creation? Or do they conveniently overlook their belief in creationism? Modern society certainly doesn't cast aside their discoveries and inventions. The consequences of their discoveries and inventions are with us every day and considerably improve our lives. Our modern developed world is built upon the discoveries of scientists who believed in six day literal creation. Oh, the irony of it!
For a much more extensive list of nearly 200 current Scientists who believe in Creation see here - Answers in Genesis - Christian Scientists.
7. John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) and his work on Electronics. He developed the first Electron tube and also worked on the Thermionic valve.
Do evolutionists deny that these great scientists held to literal six day creation? Or do they conveniently overlook their belief in creationism? Modern society certainly doesn't cast aside their discoveries and inventions. The consequences of their discoveries and inventions are with us every day and considerably improve our lives. Our modern developed world is built upon the discoveries of scientists who believed in six day literal creation. Oh, the irony of it!
For a much more extensive list of nearly 200 current Scientists who believe in Creation see here - Answers in Genesis - Christian Scientists.
III. The evidence for evolution doesn't stand up.
Among the arguments for evolution there are three which usually stand out:
[1] The fossil record;
[2] Chemical evolution;
[3] Dating methods.
[1] The Fossil Record.
The fossil record does not show, as is often claimed, the gradual evolution of one life-form into another life-form as is required and believed by evolutionists. In fact, there is no where in the world that the geological column, as composed of complete strata systems, exists. The entire geologic column exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists! This is entirely an invention of evolutionary scientists to further their claims. There are hundreds of known locations where the order of the systems identified by geologists does not match the order of the geologic column. Strata systems are believed in some places to be inverted, repeated, or inserted where they do not belong.
Darwin believed that the missing links would eventually turn up and prove his theory beyond doubt. However, the missing links are still missing! None has ever been found. Those claimed by evolutionary scientists are disputed by others. There are gaps in the fossil record at all the major breaks: fish to amphibian, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, and reptiles to mammals. In the past such was the desire to fill in these gaps that evolutionists manufactured their own forgeries. The infamous 'Piltdown Man' was proved to be a forgery. It was a hoax deliberately perpetrated in order to make part of a modern skull and the jaw bone of an orangutan appear to be the fossilized remains of a half-ape/half-human creature. It was later acknowledged to be nothing of the sort. No such fossil remains of any creature linking humans to ape-like ancestors have ever been discovered.
[2] Chemical Evolution
Evolutionists have long argued that they have proven that life originated by chance as a results of laboratory experiments. Whatever these experiments prove or disprove, they certainly do not establish the science of evolutionary theory. These results from laboratory experiments are the product of design and not chance! The results have come about via the intellect of the scientists involved and their designed experiments! They only go to prove that intelligence is needed to originate life. Their experiments also beg the question: where did the amino acids, ammonia, hydrogen, methane, water vapour, sugars, and nucleic acid come from in the first place?
[3] Dating Methods
Evolutionists say that you can prove evolution to be true because of the age of rocks. To determine the age of a rock by radiometric dating, three things must be known:
i. the present concentrations of the parent and daughter elements in the rock;
ii. the original concentrations of parent and daughter elements in that rock; and
iii. the rate of decay of the parent into the daughter element.
However, there is a serious flaw in radiometric dating. While one of the above requirements can be determined, namely the present concentration of the parent and daughter elements in the rock, the other two cannot be determined. They are unknowable and unprovable! The whole exercise is based upon assumptions. This isn't scientific.
Furthermore, it is known among scientists that radioactive isotope decay rates do fluctuate. Rocks known to have formed in living memory have been found to show radioisotope age estimates far exceeding their actual ages. For example, when the fresh lava dome at Mount St. Helens was only ten years old, it showed a radioisotope age estimate of 340,000 years!
Among the arguments for evolution there are three which usually stand out:
[1] The fossil record;
[2] Chemical evolution;
[3] Dating methods.
[1] The Fossil Record.
The fossil record does not show, as is often claimed, the gradual evolution of one life-form into another life-form as is required and believed by evolutionists. In fact, there is no where in the world that the geological column, as composed of complete strata systems, exists. The entire geologic column exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists! This is entirely an invention of evolutionary scientists to further their claims. There are hundreds of known locations where the order of the systems identified by geologists does not match the order of the geologic column. Strata systems are believed in some places to be inverted, repeated, or inserted where they do not belong.
Darwin believed that the missing links would eventually turn up and prove his theory beyond doubt. However, the missing links are still missing! None has ever been found. Those claimed by evolutionary scientists are disputed by others. There are gaps in the fossil record at all the major breaks: fish to amphibian, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, and reptiles to mammals. In the past such was the desire to fill in these gaps that evolutionists manufactured their own forgeries. The infamous 'Piltdown Man' was proved to be a forgery. It was a hoax deliberately perpetrated in order to make part of a modern skull and the jaw bone of an orangutan appear to be the fossilized remains of a half-ape/half-human creature. It was later acknowledged to be nothing of the sort. No such fossil remains of any creature linking humans to ape-like ancestors have ever been discovered.
[2] Chemical Evolution
Evolutionists have long argued that they have proven that life originated by chance as a results of laboratory experiments. Whatever these experiments prove or disprove, they certainly do not establish the science of evolutionary theory. These results from laboratory experiments are the product of design and not chance! The results have come about via the intellect of the scientists involved and their designed experiments! They only go to prove that intelligence is needed to originate life. Their experiments also beg the question: where did the amino acids, ammonia, hydrogen, methane, water vapour, sugars, and nucleic acid come from in the first place?
[3] Dating Methods
Evolutionists say that you can prove evolution to be true because of the age of rocks. To determine the age of a rock by radiometric dating, three things must be known:
i. the present concentrations of the parent and daughter elements in the rock;
ii. the original concentrations of parent and daughter elements in that rock; and
iii. the rate of decay of the parent into the daughter element.
However, there is a serious flaw in radiometric dating. While one of the above requirements can be determined, namely the present concentration of the parent and daughter elements in the rock, the other two cannot be determined. They are unknowable and unprovable! The whole exercise is based upon assumptions. This isn't scientific.
Again, how do evolutionists explain widely different dates using different dating techniques for the same piece of rock? This is not a foolproof method of dating rocks and establishing the soundness of evolution.
It is entirely scientific to teach creationism. After all, God was the only one who was there at the beginning and He ought to know! For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding, Proverbs 2:6.
No comments:
Post a Comment