Creation vs. Evolution: Part II

          Creationism was once the foundation for science. Education was once focused on a reliance on God and His Word. Science has now taken a shift from reliance on God to self-reliance through science, and education has followed. Although creationism has been made out to be a myth, the evidences for an intelligent designer are abounding. As discoveries in science are being made, evolution is losing the high ground. The evidences that atheists give for evolution are becoming more and more complicated and embark on more and more rabbit trails in order to ward off criticism. The complicated arguments that evolutionists present need to be answered with intelligent responses. This article contains a few more complicated evidences for creationism than my last article, “Creation vs. Evolution: Part I”. This article will discuss the proofs of irreducible complexity and molecular biology, which are more on the complicated side, but we need to know the complex side of arguments. The lofty evidences that are presented for evolution can only be answered by intelligent answers; so let’s begin.

In his book, Origin of Species, Charles Darwin says,
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (emphasis mine). This weak spot in Darwin’s theory is presented with the problem of irreducible complexity. The simple explanation for irreducible complexity is given in the example of a mousetrap. In order for the mousetrap to work, all of its parts have to be present at once. If the spring is not present, then the whole mechanism will not work. The same goes for the hammer, platform, or holding bar. When you have a system of cooperating parts, all of the pieces have to be present at the exact same moment or it will not work. The problem presented to evolution here is that if something evolved, it would only have one piece of the mechanism until the other parts evolved, and therefore the mechanism could not work. An example of this is a bacterial flagellum. Some bacteria have an organ called a flagellum. The flagellum works like a propeller, moving the bacteria around and allowing it to perform its function. 

Bacterial Flagellum

There are many pieces of the flagellum and unless they are all present at the same time the bacteria would not be able to function. Therefore, bacterial flagellum could not have evolved. Another example is the eye. If the retina is there but the iris has not evolved yet the eye will not function and vice versa. Irreducible complexity can be summed up like this: all of it works or none of it works.

Another one of the key components to evolution is that the first life form was the first self replicating cell. This cell began to reproduce and become more and more complex until over millions of years it evolved into all of the life we observe today. Advances in the field of molecular biology have produced very damaging evidences against evolution. The first problem with the theory of the first replicating cell is that it has now been discovered that no molecule can self replicate without the participation of other, critically important outside molecules. So, without other cells one cell could not reproduce, but there could not be two cells without one reproducing itself. This provides a critical breakdown in evolution. Another problem that has been presented by molecular biology is that macroevolution has been shown to be impossible. They are two types of evolution; there is microevolution and macroevolution (Micro=small. Macro=big). Microevolution is when there are small changes in a species, like what Darwin observed in the changes of beak size and shape in the finches on the Galapagos Islands. We see these small changes of microevolution happening today. Microevolution occurs when, for instance, say there are finches that live in a part of the world where they eat nuts that are very hard to crack. Because all the finches with thinner, weaker beaks could not eat these nuts they would die off, leaving only the finches with thicker, stronger beaks. Macroevolution is when very, very large changes occur. An example of macroevolution would be one of the finches Darwin observed turning into an eagle. Molecular biology has provided evidence that the changes that would have to take place in the cells of a species for macroevolution to occur are simply not possible.

While we are on the subject of macroevolution, I would like to present some comments given by one of the world’s most renowned chemists, Professor James M. Tour.  Mr. Tour candidly states, “I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened.” He says, “I will tell you as a scientists and synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules.” Mr. Tour honestly says, “Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, ‘Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?’ Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go ‘Uh-uh. Nope.’” The world’s foremost scientists, who of all people should understand evolution tell us that they have no idea how evolution could be possible. Mr. Tour also said that he was speaking with a bio-engineer who was studying changes in the ear and he asked him, ‘How does all of this come about?’ The bio-engineer answered, “Oh, Jim, you know we all believe in evolution, but we have no idea how it happened.” Atheists accuse religion of being blind faith, but with this evidence, evolution seems very much like the thing that is being believed in blind faith.   

As Christians, we need to have intelligent proofs for an intelligent designer. If the universe was created by an intelligent designer we should be expected to have intelligent evidences for creation. Creationism has been discarded and waved aside as foolishness, but the lack of fundamental proofs for evolution is starting to come into the light. Whether we are skeptics or believers, we should search for the truth. We must follow the evidence wherever it leads. This information is not meant to initiate arguments, but first and foremost these evidences are to help convince the most important skeptic of all… yourself. If we are too afraid, or maybe just complacent, to ask hard questions, we will be much less likely to stand firm for the truth. Know what you believe. Know why you believe it.