On one hand, some might say there aren’t any scientific problems with theistic evolution for the simple reason that whatever scientific barriers might exist, they can be overcome by the fact that God is all-powerful.  In other words, it’s primarily a matter of looking at the concept of naturalistic (or atheistic) evolution in general and anywhere there is a significant problem, we just insert God’s creative power.  For example, atheistic evolutionists have a very hard time legitimately explaining how you get something out of nothing (i.e. the origin of the universe).  No problem for a theistic evolutionist, because he or she can just simply call upon God at the point to get the ball rolling.  Then God is free to go back to doing whatever it was He was doing in the first place, because natural law can take over from there.  Then when there are problems getting the first stars or galaxies to form, they can simply have God step back in and help out.  Fast-forwarding (and skipping many other challenges) we arrive at an Earth which has cooled down, but is still lifeless.  We need to get non-living chemicals to form a living cell.  This has plagued scientists who have been feverishly experimenting for the past 60+ years.  No problem for a theistic evolutionist, however, because they can once again call on God to lend a hand and then go back again to doing… whatever.

This is very much a “god-of-the-gaps” scenario and is not at all satisfying or acceptable to the naturalistic scientists and it would never be allowed to be taught in public schools or universities.  Some might say that creationists rely on a “god-of-the-gaps” in a similar way.  The main difference is that we start with Scripture to see what God said He did and don’t just evoke His power whenever we are having difficulty in finding natural explanations.  For example, we don’t expect to find a natural explanation for the origin of man, because Genesis tells us that God miraculously created Adam from the dust of the Earth.  It was a one-time event.  On the other hand, the origin of the various people groups (I don’t use the term “races”) can be naturalistically explained based on how genetics work, along with reading about the Bible’s historical record of the flood and dispersion at the Tower of Babel.  Therefore, we don’t need to evoke a miracle to introduce a variety of skin color and other features (such as eye shape).

Here’s another issue with theistic evolution.  If a single celled organism evolved into every other life form on this planet, where are all the intermediate forms?  There should be countless examples, but all evolutionists have is a small handful all of which are highly disputable.  Let’s think about these intermediates a bit further as well.  According to current evolutionary thinking, some type of reptile evolved into modern birds.  That would require converting the two-way lung of a reptile into the one way lung of a bird, not to even mention all of the other structural changes such as feathers and hollow bones – which are actually part of the breathing system!  How could the intermediate creature survive?  We can’t really even imagine intermediate stages that would function well and we don’t have any fossil record of such an animal.  And this is just one example.  Many others could also be given such as transitioning from a three-chambered heart (like an amphibian) into a four-chambered heart (like in a mammal).

There are many other scientific problems with the whole story of evolution, but I personally feel the biggest argument against theistic evolution isn’t really related to science (as many problems as there are), but to what God told us He did.  If He truly did use evolution, it would have been no problem at all for him to describe it in general in Genesis… but He didn’t.  He told us Adam was created from the dust of the Earth, Eve, from the side of Adam, etc… not at all what modern evolutionary science purports.  We all have to decide what our ultimate source of authority is… man or God.  (“Let God be true, but every man a liar.” – Romans 3:4,  “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight.” – 1 Cor 3:19)

If you have any further questions about  God, creation, Christianity or the Bible, don’t hesitate to contact us.  You can even arrange a FREE ENGAGEMENT or seminar at your church, school, conference or camp.

Author:  Jay Seegert  (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

PART 2: “How could you be so arrogant to say that God could not use evolution?  I have a degree in Biology and know that evolution is a fact and that all scientists believe it!”  

Last month we began a mini-series of articles related to possibility of God having used evolution as His creative process. (Click here to view Part 1 of this series.) The above quote was just one of many that I have received over the years from people who believe it is very reasonable to believe that God simply used evolution as His means of “creation”. Therefore, they conclude that there’s no reason to doubt evolution and we can be quite content in believing in both the Bible and evolution. As we mentioned last month, this view (often referred to as “Theistic Evolution”) admittedly seems on the surface to be a great solution to the apparent tension that exists between the Bible and what the majority of scientists believe regarding the origin and development of life. However, as we’ve pointed out in previous articles, things that seem plausible on the surface often turn out to be riddled with insurmountable difficulty upon further investigation.

We started the series with an introduction to this issue and mentioned that we would subsequently be delving into two sub-topics: (a) Biblical problems with Theistic Evolution, and (b) Scientific problems with Theistic Evolution. This month’s article focuses on a few of the biblical challenges.

One of the most obvious biblical issues would be the fact that the creation account is very straightforward and does not describe evolutionary processes. Most people readily recognize that Genesis chapters 1-2 recount a simple progression of miraculously creative acts during a period of six solar days. Therefore, if they wish to adhere to modern evolutionary biology, they simply relegate the first few chapters of Genesis as allegory, poetry or some other non-literal interpretation. The Bible unmistakably contains passages that are poetic and allegorical in nature and each time it is greatly evidenced by the context. However, Genesis 1-2 was not written in this fashion, but rather, as “historical narrative”. Space prohibits listing all of the evidence for this, but volumes have been written along these lines. Realizing that the text itself does not support evolutionary theories, some religious leaders have gone as far as to dismiss Genesis altogether in favor of current secular views. The inherent danger with this is “Why stop at Genesis? Why not take it to its logical conclusion and start questioning other portions of Scripture?” One such example comes from Bishop Hugh Montefiore writing in the Confirmation Notebook (fifth edition – 1984 SPCK, London):

“The Garden of Eden is a ‘myth’… From the viewpoint of anthropology it is exceedingly unlikely that there was a First Man and Woman…

Human beings are the result of evolution, and shaped by natural selection. Self-centeredness and aggression were essential at every stage of evolution…

What the Cross is Not… The Son standing in my place to take the punishment that I ought to have. Such a view is immoral. In any case no one person could suffer the whole world’s punishments.”

Arguably, the most significant difficulty with theistic evolution is that it introduces death before sin. The Bible makes it clear that God’s original creation was free from evil and that it was Adam’s sin that brought death into His creation (Romans 5:12). If God used evolution, then we have millions of years of death, disease, mutations, suffering, etc. all long before Adam even appeared on the planet. So when he arrived, his sin did not bring about death… it had been around for eons of time. If mankind is not responsible for brining death in to God’s world, then Jesus Christ wasted his time dying on the cross!

Commenting on the idea of God using evolution, atheist Carl Sagan logically stated:

“If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn’t he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why is he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there’s one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He’s not good at design, he’s not good at execution. He’d be out of business if there was any competition.”

Evolution represents a very random, inefficient process with lots of death and disease. This hardly seems to be the work of an omniscient, omnipotent, loving Creator. God is not the author of confusion (I Cor 14:33), but of wonder, power and majesty. I think Carl Sagan noted saw the illogic of God using evolution better than some Christians.

One other person who seems to understand the fallacy of compromising Scripture with modern evolutionary views is Richard Dawkins who is one of the world’s leading evolutionists and a very outspoken atheist. He commented regarding Christians who try to take Genesis as just an allegory and not literal:

“Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? As I said, barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant.” [Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 25]

Pointing out a further problem (to Biologos, a group of theistic evolutionists) one blogger noted that they have…

“no actual principle to stand on when they oppose a literal reading of Genesis but support a literal reading of a story of a virgin birth.” ["BioLogos gets in bed with the fundies," Why Evolution Is True, 22 July 2010.]

Another author responded to Biologos with the following comments:

“If your intention in ‘Saving Darwin’ is to show ‘how to be a Christian and believe in evolution,’ what you have actually succeeded in doing is to show how much doctrine Christianity has to surrender in order to accommodate itself to evolution. In doing this, you and your colleagues at Biologos are actually doing us all a great service. You are showing us what the acceptance of evolution actually costs, in terms of theological concessions.” [Al Mohler, "On Darwin and Darwinism: An Open Letter to Professor Giberson," AlbertMohler.com, 26 August 2010.]

A final biblical issue of contention with evolution is found in a statement from Jesus himself. In Mark 10:6 (and Matthew 19:4) Jesus was responding to the Pharisees regarding marriage and divorce. In doing so, he stated “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.” According to Jesus, Adam and Eve were here right at the beginning. According to evolution, however, modern man (which would have included Adam and Eve) did not appear on the planet until perhaps 100,000 years ago. If evolution is true and the universe came into existence approximately 13.7 billion years ago, then the appearance of man (100,000 years ago) is nowhere near the beginning. In fact it would be 0.0007% away from the END!

Check back next month for a brief review of some of the scientific problems with theistic evolution.

If you have any further questions about  God, creation, Christianity or the Bible, don’t hesitate to contact us.  You can even arrange a FREE engagement or seminar at your church, school, conference or camp.

Author:  Jay Seegert  (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

“How could you be so arrogant to say that God could not use evolution?  I have a degree in Biology and know that evolution is a fact and that all scientists believe it!”  

That was the response I received from someone who attended one of my engagements recently.  She was noticeably upset and carried on for quite a while during our open Q&A session following the lecture (which on this particular occasion was in a church with about 600 in attendance). So how would you respond to such a question?  I guess that largely depends on what you believe is the correct answer.  Maybe you have asked a similar question yourself.   Maybe you are still asking this question.  Maybe you have had others pose this question, but you did not feel adequately prepared to give a well-reasoned response.

How did I respond?  First and foremost, I made every effort to be gracious and affirming.  Without this effort, my actual answer may easily have not even been heard.   Even though she did not ask her question or make her statements in a very kind or respectful way, I sincerely thanked her for being willing to share her honest thoughts and stated that there’s a good chance that many others in attendance that morning may have the same question.  I then went on to briefly address each point she raised. (By the way, after the event, she approached me in the lobby with a big smile, shook my hand and walked away!)

Where does this question come from?  I believe it is largely generated by the fact that many Christians find themselves in a bit of an apparent dilemma. They certainly believe in God and view the Bible as being his inspired Word, but they are also under the impression that scientist have virtually proven that evolution is a fact.  They may also believe that science just deals with facts and you can’t really argue with that, because it is what it is.  On the other hand, they reason that the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways and it doesn’t matter so much what we believe about creation, as long as we at least believe in Jesus.  (We’ve dealt with the latter statement in previous articles.)  The easiest way to resolve this apparent conundrum is to simply merge the two together.  “God used evolution.  Case closed!  No need to argue with either side.”

On the surface this seems like the best solution and I believe that most Christians who hold to this position do so in all sincerity. It also may seem like it is really taking the “higher ground” position… not completely rejecting either side.  I personally believe that evolution and religion are very compatible.  Really?  Yes, really.  What’s the catch?  Here’s the catch… Evolution and religion are very compatible, but not evolution and Christianity!  Religion is largely “man’s” idea of God (or “a” god).  There are so many different religions because there are so many different people and they all have their own ideas about who or what God is, why we are here and what he want from us, etc.  Christianity, on the other hand, is “God’s” idea of God.  I personally believe that what God chose to tell us about himself and his creation, rules out the evolutionary theories being taught in schools and universities today.  I think that non-Christians often recognize this more readily than Christians, as evidenced in the following quote from Professor David Oldroyd:

“People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or can go together. But I suggest this is only possible for the intellectually schizophrenic. Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process…”

Professor David Oldroyd, (School of Science and Technology Studies at the University of New South Wales, Australia.) writing in The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20–21 March 1993, p. 5.

Atheist G. Richard Bozarth wrote:

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”

G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.

So… I believe that you can be quite comfortable in believing that God used evolution as his “creative process” if, and this is a big “if”, you avoid two things.  First of all, do not study Scripture in any real depth.  Secondly, do not analyze evolution scientifically.  The point I am making is that evolution is really not supported by either the Bible or true science.  We will briefly touch on both of these areas in this current series of articles.  Check back next month!

If you have any further questions about  God, creation, Christianity or the Bible, don’t hesitate to contact us.  You can even arrange a FREE engagement or seminar at your church, school, conference or camp.

Author:  Jay Seegert  (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

However, many people don’t necessarily have the same view of the Bible and are more apt to be interested in the actual physical evidence.  So is there actually evidence for the Genesis flood?  In this brief answer, we will look at just of few of the many evidences that confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible’s account of the flood.  It is interesting to point out, just before delving into the geological evidence, that there are over 270 flood stories from cultures all around the world.  Certainly, some of them have become embellished over the years, but it stands as strong evidence for the reality of this event.  Let’s consider the following lines of physical evidence:

Massive Amounts of Sedimentary Layers

A worldwide flood would deposit massive layers of sedimentary rock all over the planet… and that’s just what we see.  TheGrand Canyonis the best place to see many of these layers because they are greatly exposed.  Some layers of sediment stretch across tremendous amounts of real estate, such as the Tapeat Sandstone which we see stretching from the Grand Canyon, across the US, up into Canada and all the way across the Atlantic into England!

Rapid Deposition

Historically, standard secular geologic models had us believing that these sedimentary layers accumulated slowly over hundreds of millions of years.  Further studies have clearly shown that most of these layers were deposited very rapidly. One example is that fact that these sedimentary layers contain literally billions and billions of fossils.  However, these fossils will only form if the original plants and animals were buried rapidly.  If a cow dies in the field today, other animals will eat the meat, leaving behind the bones, which will themselves eventually decay away and you’ll never even know the cow had been there.  On the other hand, if it gets buried rapidly, even though the flesh will decay away relatively quickly, the bones will last long enough to be converted into a fossil (which doesn’t take hundreds of thousands or millions of years).  The fact that these layers are filled with billions of fossils tells us they were deposited rapidly, not slowly over millions and millions of years.  (We even have fossils of fish that were in the process of eating other fish and giving birth!)

Folded Mountains

As another evidence of rapid deposition, we have greatly folded mountains and other sedimentary layers.  For example, the Tapeat Sandstone (in theGrand Canyon) contains sections that are folded 90 degrees!  If these layers were laid down over millions of years, they would have cracked and fractured as they were subsequently folded.  In reality, there is no evidence of cracking whatsoever.  These layers were laid down rapidly and while still soft, they were greatly folded, subsequently hardening into solid rock.

No Erosion Between Layers

As mentioned in the previous point, the actual evidence shows rapid deposition.  But if the layers themselves were laid down rapidly, you lose your evidence for “millions and millions of years” which is so crucial to the evolutionary story.  Recognizing this, secular geologists proposed that the time, while not being represented in the layers themselves, occurred in between the layers… where we see… nothing!  Generally speaking, they say each layer was indeed laid down rapidly, but then sat there for millions of years waiting for the next layer to be deposited. Therefore, all of the time is actually represented in between the layers.  However, if this were true, what would we expect to see?  Well, if a layer sat exposed for millions of years, we would see erosion, soil development, plant growth and bioterbation (i.e. burrowing affects of animals and worms, etc.).  In reality, we don’t see these.  We see flat, knife-edge boundaries between these layers and occasional evidence of very rapid erosion.

Marine Fossils High Above Sea Level

We have fossils of sea creatures all across the continents and in other places that are high above sea level, such as theGrand Canyon(over a mile above sea level)!  We even have marine fossils onMount Everest!  This only makes sense if there was a global flood (with these high mountains having been lower in the past and catastrophically raised at the end of the flood – see Psalm 104:6-9).

These are just a few of the physical evidences that there truly was a global flood and that once again, the biblical record is validated through science.

We read in 2 Peter 3:3-7 that in the last days, skeptics will be scoffing at the return of Christ.  It also says that these same people who doubt the second coming of Christ also are ignorant of God’s initial judgment in the past through the flood of Noah.  Peter actually predicted this phenomenon and it is exactly what we are seeing today.

If you have any further questions about the flood or anything else about God, Christianity or the Bible, don’t hesitate to contact us.  You can even arrange a free engagement or seminar at your church, school, conference or camp.

Author:  Jay Seegert  (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

Let’s take a brief moment to define our terms. Some of this might seem like semantics, but it is vital to our discussion. When we think of someone telling a lie, we typically think of them conveying something that they know is not true. For example, if your son just ate your daughter’s chocolate chip cookie and said he didn’t… that’s a lie. Pretty straight-forward. Consider, however, the following scenario. Let’s say he did actually eat a cookie that was hers, but truly thought it was his brothers (who had given him permission to eat his). Then, even though what he said was not true (that he did not eat her cookie), he was not “lying” because he was not telling you something that he knew to be false. He was simply wrong about what he believed. As a parent, I would certainly handle these two scenarios differently, as would most of you.

Turning our focus to the public school classroom… what are we to think about all the teachers (or professors in the universities) who are teaching molecules-to-man evolution? Are they lying to our children? I think we have a somewhat similar situation to our cookie scenario. It is my personal belief and experience that the vast majority of school teachers are very nice people and are fairly gifted at what they do. They are not “evil” people bent on deceiving as many students as possible, driving home each day laughing sinisterly about how easy it is to fill children’s heads will lies.

Although there certainly are a few exceptions, these teachers are simply teaching what they learned growing-up and in their college education. Some of these teachers are atheistic in their beliefs and teaching evolution not only makes sense to them, but it’s their only choice, since God is not or cannot be part of the equation. Most, however, have some sort of worldview that involves God at least to some extent. The problem is two-fold: (a) They have only been exposed to one side of the debate in their own education, and (b) their personal religious belief doesn’t present any perceived tension between evolution and the existence of God (or a god). Even for many Christian teachers in the public school system… they are quite comfortable with believing in the Bible and evolution. They are under the impression that evolution has been proven or is at least extremely well-supported by science and that the Bible can be interpreted in various ways, allowing for the idea of evolution. Personally, I believe one can be quite at-ease with these two views if you avoid two things: (1) doing any kind of serious study of the Bible and (2) doing any kind of serious examination of evolution. This can be covered in more depth in a future “Question of the Month”.

So, are public school science teachers evil people, lying to our children? I don’t think we should view them this way, nor do I think it is beneficial or respectful. They themselves have been deceived and consequently are teaching things that are false and certainly contrary to God’s Word. We need to realize that this is ultimately a spiritual battle and that they often are not able to discern truth, as is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 2:14 “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.”

What can we do about all that is being taught that is contrary to the inerrant truth’s of Scripture? Much could be said regarding this, but in briefly answering this month’s question, I would summarize a few recommended actions:

• Know the truth ourselves! We first need to know what God’s Word actually teaches, before we can appropriately discern truth from lies. We can also learn more about what science truly has to say about origins, so when we confront others, we can share both from Scripture and science. That’s what our ministry is all about.
• Mentor your own children! Don’t leave this to someone else… not even the church. It is our primary responsibility. Others can certainly help, but we need to be much more proactive in this area.
• Approach the teacher(s) in a very humble and gracious manner regarding your concerns. Ask a lot of questions, rather than simply showing up with the attitude to “proving” how wrong they are. Our Christ-like character will go a lot farther than our arguments ever will!
• Pray! In all of the above, pray and ask God for wisdom… He will not fail you: “If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.” (James 1:5)

We would love to help you with these areas so please do not hesitate to contact us!

Author:  Jay Seegert  (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

This question is frequently used to cast serious doubt on the Bible and often in attempt to ridicule it as being just a bunch of fairytales. The conversation typically goes something like this… “Let me get this straight… the Bible says there was a worldwide flood during which the entire Earth was covered with water. So where did all that water go? I’m looking around… but I don’t see it!”

Most Christians don’t know how to respond and sometimes offer answers that don’t seem very credible (even ones that they themselves don’t really buy into). For example, they might say “Well, I think God made it disappear when the flood was over.” Others will avoid an answer altogether. We need, however, to make sure that we know what God’s Word actually tells us about this question rather than making up our own answers which often are neither biblically sound nor scientifically accurate.

Genesis 6-8 does indeed describe a worldwide flood. We read in Genesis 7:20 that the highest mountains were covered “15 cubits” which would be about 22 ½ feet and that “all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.” (Gen 7:19) This was definitely a global flood, worldwide in extent. That’s a lot of water. Skipping many other details regarding the flood itself, including where all the water came from to begin with, we will focus on where it went afterwards.

Most people do not realize just how much water is on the Earth today. It is 70% covered with water in its present form. In fact, there’s so much water that if you were to smooth out the Earth like a cue ball (i.e. flatten the mountains and fill in the oceans) there’s enough water to cover the Earth 1.7 miles deep! Now that truly is a lot of water! An interesting side note… scientists have discovered small amounts of frozen water on Mars and believe that the red planet has experienced a global flood in its past. However, the Earth is currently 70% covered with liquid water and they deny the possibility of a global flood here!

The Bible gives us a very good explanation of where the waters went at the end of the flood. Psalm 104:6-9 (NASB) states “You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled, at the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which You established for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass over, so that they will not return to cover the earth.” Think about the phrase, “The mountains rose; the valleys sank down.” What does that indicate? It tells us that the mountains before the flood were not as high as they are today and valleys (more specifically the ocean trenches) were not as deep. Therefore, the mountains that were covered with water during the flood were not the same as we see today. For example, Mount Everest, which today is about 5.5 miles high, was not that tall in the pre-flood world. It’s interesting to note that we find fossilized sea creatures on top of Mount Everest! That only makes sense if it was lower in the past and covered with water. (There’s not enough water on the planet to cover mountains that high and there is also evidence of great uplifting.) Ocean trenches, such as the 6.8 mile deep Mariana Trench off the coast of Japan also did not exist. Catastrophic plate tectonics not only explains the uplifting of mountains, but also the creation of these great ocean trenches (a topic for some other time).

God promised us in Genesis 9:13-15 that He would never again flood the entire Earth. The catastrophic post flood change in the Earth’s geology was God’s way of abating the waters and ensuring that there would never again be such a flood, “You set a boundary that they may not pass over, so that they will not return to cover the earth.” (Psalm 104: 9)

In summary, we have the water rushing off the uplifted mountains, traveling across the land and running down into the deepening ocean trenches. So where did all the water go after the flood? It mainly went back into the oceans! Today, all ocean and lake water is really “flood” water! There have been subsequent formations of local bodies of water, such as lakes, ponds and rivers, but the water is really all the same… it just gets circulated differently via evaporation, condensation, rain, springs, etc. There’s actually a fair amount of additional water that is trapped in layers of the Earth, due to the effects of the flood. As strange as it may sound, if you had some coffee this morning, you were actually drinking “flood water”!

This is a greatly abbreviated response to this question, but hopefully it will better position you to address it in the future. The Bible truly is the ultimate “Answers” book and I encourage each of you to read it every day and allow God to greatly strengthen your faith so that you may be a blessing and encouragement to others. You may also wish to purchase our “Answers” DVD which addresses this question as well as 9 other “Top 10″ questions.

Author:  Jay Seegert  (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

Evolutionists envision that even though mutations (random copying errors made when replicating and passing on DNA – the primary factor in providing “change”) are nearly all “bad” (and some even lethal), once in a great, great while, there are beneficial mutations that accumulate over time, allowing for evolution to progress as postulated.  Again, on the surface, this makes sense to many people, scientists and laypeople alike.

This month we will elucidate one additional factor that renders this scenario virtually impossible.

We noted last month that because DNA contains messages going forwards and backwards, even if we somehow were able to randomly improve a set of complex instructions in one direction, it would inevitably mess-up the instructions going the other way.  In addition to this challenge, there’s a whole slew of other factors that make the typical evolutionary scenario implausible.

Imagine the following two phrases overlapping: “I like chocolate” and “later that evening.”  Since the first phrase ends in “late” and the second phrase starts with those letters, an overlap would look as follows: “I like chocolater that evening” (with the overlap portion in bold).  When joined together this way, these two sensible phrases become non-sensible.  However, if the reader knew that this strange phrase actually contained two separate messages and knew where to start and stop when deciphering each one, they could then properly extract the original information.

Now imagine making a random change to this non-sensible phrase, with the hope of improving the information.  If you make the change somewhere in the overlapping section, even if you accidentally did manage to somehow make a slight improvement to one of the phrases, it is virtually certain that you will be messing up the second message!

Why am I sharing this literary conundrum?  Because scientists have discovered that the messages on our DNA also overlap, but we’re not simply talking about an overlap of a few letters… it’s more like entire chapters!  Absolutely incredible!  First of all, imagine the challenge of trying to write something in English in such a way that entire sentences or paragraphs overlap.  Now try it with entire chapters overlapping.  Add to this the fact that when mutations occur, they often occur in the stretches of DNA that do overlap, so even if we could imagine some kind of an improvement in the first set of instructions, we would be damaging the information in the second set that overlaps the first!

Now add this that fact that you would also be damaging the information that is going in the other direction, as mentioned earlier.  Are you starting to get a feel for how much of a challenge genetics poses to the sometimes seemingly plausible story of evolution?  It’s at this point that I have a confession to make.  My faith is not strong enough to believe this all happened by accident!  Yes, I truly believe it takes faith to believe in evolution, a lot of faith, an almost infinite amount of faith.  In light of this, it is interesting to note that many people believe that evolution is science and can be or has been proven, but creation is just a religious belief not at all supported by science (and in fact “anti-science”).

When we observe things in nature that are far beyond what our most brilliant scientists and engineers could possibly construct or even conceive, why are so many willing to say, “It was just an accident.  Natural, undirected forces of nature could produce such things.”?  We have no problem detecting design in other things, such as jet engines, cell phones and x-ray machines, why is it such a stretch to say that things in the biological world also exhibit evidence of design?  I think the main reason is because the whole issue of origins is not really an academic debate, but a spiritual issue, as outlined very powerfully in Romans chapter 1, which says in part (starting in verse 21) “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.”

Next month we will look an additional layer of complexity, further compounding the challenges to evolution.

If you would be interested in scheduling a free REAL ANSWERS seminar at your church, school, camp, conference, etc. we would be more than happy to assist you in developing a rock-solid Christian worldview, greatly strengthening the faith of your congregation, class or group.  We do not charge for our engagements, but simply accept free-will offerings, honorariums or whatever you deem appropriate. (We only ask that any actual expenses be covered in addition.)

Contact us today to schedule a free seminar or to ask any questions!

Author:  Jay Seegert  (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

We also pointed out that when creatures reproduce, they literally make a copy of their DNA and pass it along to their offspring which allows them to develop into the same kind of life form as the parents (dogs produce dogs, horses produce horses, etc.)  Since mutation is the primary agent in changing DNA, evolutionists look to it as a driving force of evolution.  Ultimately, they claim it transformed a single-celled bacteria into a human being through countless intermediate forms.

As we have previously discussed in other articles, mutations are accidental, random copying errors.  Let’s say that a college Biochemistry textbook is equivalent to the amount of information in a single-celled organism.  According to evolutionary theory, we have to copy this textbook over and over, occasionally introducing a few errors, such as deleting, inserting or duplicating random letters, words or paragraphs.  Do you envision this process slowly improving the textbook or degrading it and leading to its ultimate demise?  I think the answer is obvious.  Ah, but wait a minute!  Every once in a great, great while there might actually be an accidental error that serves to improve a tiny segment of the text.  It’s tough to imagine, given how complex these textbooks are, but it could theoretically happen, and that’s what evolutionists rely on in order for evolution to proceed, converting single-celled organisms into people through a vast array of intermediate steps.

Here’s the catch.  Even if there occasionally would be a random error that somehow seemed to improve a small piece of information, there’s actually a lot more damage being done at the same time, by the same change.  How does that work?  We’ll take a look at just a single example in the remainder of this article.

Carefully consider the following phrase: Was it a rat I saw?  What’s interesting about this phrase is that it reads the same thing forward as it does backwards, letter by letter.  We have discovered something similar in our DNA… much of it can be read forwards and backwards.  To make it even more interesting, in the case of our DNA, it not only can be read backwards, but there is an additional, distinct message when read in reverse, so it’s not just the same information repeated, but an additional set of instructions!  And we’re not simply talking about a short phrase such as in our example, but entire chapters within our DNA!  So here’s the issue.  Even if you could manage to somehow introduce a random error that slightly improved the message going left-to-right, you would be messing up the other message that goes from right-to-left!

Here’s an interesting exercise to help you get an idea of the design marvel of DNA, considering that there are messages encoded in both directions.  Try writing something yourself that makes sense in both directions.  The example I shared was fairly short and it was actually them same information repeated in both directions.  I did not have the time or energy to come up with an example that contained a separate message in each direction.  The best I could do when I did try was something short and not very meaningful or sensible:  STRESSED RATS, which backwards spells STAR DESSERTS.  Now imagine writing an entire paragraph!  This is further evidence of the immense intelligence of our Creator!  However, many will continue not to see this, because of their spiritual blindness (“The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

We can continue to share evidence for the biblical account of creation, but we must understand that no amount of “facts” will ever change the heart of those who willingly choose not to believe.  It reminds me of the somewhat humorous, yet poignant twist of a common saying: “I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t believed it!”  It is only after some one is humbly willing to consider they may be wrong that they will actually be able to see the truth.

We’ll take a look at another layer of complexity within our DNA in next month’s article, giving further evidence of the impossibility of molecules-to-man evolution and testimony to our great and wonderful God!  Check back next month for the continuing saga!

If you would be interested in scheduling a free REAL ANSWERS seminar at your church, school, camp, conference, etc. we would be more than happy to assist you in developing a rock-solid Christian worldview, greatly strengthening the faith of your congregation, class or group.  We do not charge for our engagements, but simply accept free-will offerings, honorariums or whatever you deem appropriate. (We only ask that any actual expenses be covered in addition.)

Contact us today to schedule a free seminar or to ask any questions!

Author:  Jay Seegert  (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

It’s often the same way when considering the idea of evolution.  Many Christians are quick to say they don’t believe in evolution, but if we are honest with ourselves, some portions of the evolutionary story seem somewhat plausible, especially as taught in our educational system.  For example, to the average high school or college student, it may seem quite plausible that a fish could slowly turn into an amphibian if enough time is allowed.  We can envision the fish’s fins being slightly modified into short legs giving it the ability to crawl.  Then it gradually creeps up onto land a little at a time and becomes accustomed to breathing air and eventually is able to spend much of its time out of the water.  These two creatures look fairly similar, so it’s not that much of a stretch of the imagination to picture this occurring.  Please don’t misunderstand me.  I am not saying that I believe this actually happened or even that it could… I’m simply saying that it often seems quite plausible in many people’s minds when presented to them and most of them are not in a position to be able to argue against it.

Let’s take a look at another analogy that will shed some light on the key point of this series of articles.  What if someone told you that an Etch-A-Sketch^® slowly turned into an iPad^® all on its own over long periods of time?  They look somewhat similar on the outside, don’t they?  Can’t you envision the Etch-A-Sketch’s^® two white control knobs slowly disappearing and the display slightly changing?  You instantly see the folly of this, because of what you know has to go on INSIDE in order for the relatively simple child’s toy to be transformed into a very high tech device such as an iPad^®.  What may look slightly similar on the outside is miles apart from being the same on the inside.

It’s the same problem with the story of evolution. Ultimately, we’re not just talking about a fish evolving into an amphibian, but a single-celled organism evolving into a human being!   What might occasionally seem plausible from a distance becomes literally unbelievable when you “take a peek under the hood”.  In this mini-series of articles we will briefly discuss what would have to happen on the inside (“under the hood”) in order for evolution to be possible.

Within the cells of all living things are strands of DNA… the blueprint of life.  What something turns out to be is completely dependent on the information on its DNA.  Fern DNA produces ferns.  Iguana DNA produces iguanas and emu DNA produces… you guessed it… emus!  In order to transform a single-celled organism into a human being, something has to change!  Single-celled bacteria contain DNA that produces single-celled bacteria.  It may be able to produce a limited variety, but in each case its offspring are still single-celled bacteria.  So how do we get from there all the way to Aaron Rodgers?  (No, I’m not saying that Aaron is the pinnacle of God’s creation… I’m just a big Packer fan! And to this point in time, I believe he has displayed a high level of integrity and has had a strong Christian testimony.)

Evolutionists primarily point to three key elements that comprise the “engine” of evolution: (a) mutations, (b) natural selection and (c) lots and lots of time.  We will only be focusing on mutations in this short series of articles, but as we have pointed out previously, natural selection, while certainly being an observable fact, only works with what already exists… it does not and cannot produce anything new.  It only gets rid of things.  Secondly, the idea of millions and billions of years is not only not well supported by either science or Scripture, but even if vast amounts of time have occurred in the past, it would still not be evidence for evolution.

We’ve laid the groundwork for what we will look at in a bit more depth next month, specifically, what goes on within our DNA.  I promise that it will be extremely fascinating and eye-opening at the same time.  Check back next month for the continuing saga!

If you would be interested in scheduling a free REAL ANSWERS seminar at your church, school, camp, conference, etc. we would be more than happy to assist you in developing a rock-solid Christian worldview, greatly strengthening the faith of your congregation, class or group.  We do not charge for our engagements, but simply accept free-will offerings, honorariums or whatever you deem appropriate. (We only ask that any actual expenses be covered in addition.)

Contact us today to schedule a free seminar or to ask any questions!

Author:  Jay Seegert  (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)