The Origin of Everything

In an earlier post, I described the basic problems with the religion of atheism. In this post, I discuss why its philosophical underpinnings are wrong.

Act 1: Bang!

The evidence of modern science is quite clear. The universe has NOT eternally existed. The universe had a beginning. It was about 13 billion years ago. That much is certain.

What is not clear is how such an event occurred. Our current knowledge gleaned through the most advanced multi-million dollar telescopes goes something like this:



That story is not satisfactory. It’s not science. It’s theology. And that is what makes a number of physicists uncomfortable.

Bluntly, the only bang I believe in is: God spoke, and (bang!) it happened. Our best data of the origin of the entire universe is pretty much synonymous with Genesis 1:1.

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

Is there anything known about the intervening eons? … Oh yes, and more scientific mysteries lurk in those realms (cosmic voids; galaxy filaments; supermassive black holes).

What about the early history of our universe: are its first few hours well understood? … Not really – the more we observe and learn about it, the more unknowns and indescribables we find (e.g. the exact nature of dark matter; dark energy anything).

So the early history of the universe seems to agree with the Word of God. What about the Earth – does what we know about Earth’s history through science dovetail with the Biblical account?

This is where it gets even more interesting. Everything we find about the history of our planet lines up pretty well with the order of events in Genesis 1 …

Science: 3.5 billion years ago, the earth was a formless, empty rock. Some water was present.
The Bible (Genesis 1:2): The earth was a formless, empty rock. Water was present.

Science: about 2.8 billion years ago, Earth’s volcanic atmosphere gets less opaque & LIGHT shines through.
The Bible (Genesis 1:3): Day #1; LIGHT appears on earth.

Science: approximately 1 billion years ago, the atmosphere as we know it has arrived.
The Bible (Genesis 1:6-8): Day #2; the atmosphere as we know it is created.

Science is making quite a habit of this. It takes centuries for secular knowledge-seekers to arrive at the truths theologians have believed for millennia. Call that what you will; C. S. Lewis called it scientism – the arrogant dogma that the scientific approach works in everything from philosophy and social policy to religion itself.

Act 2: The Scientific Method vs. Charles Darwin

Is evolution supported by The Bible? Quite simply, no:

“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7)

Alright, the Word of God doesn’t support evolution.

Is evolution supported by SCIENCE? … Well … It depends on what we mean by “evolution”. Bacteria “evolve” resistances to antibiotics. Llamas and camels “evolved” from a common ancestor. But notice the commonalities in those 2 statements. Llamas and camels are different species, but they are quite similar. Also, antibiotic-resistant bacteria are still, at the end of the day, the same basic bacteria as they were before (with a few slight internal modifications).

But is this really what is meant by the question, “is evolution true?” Do we mean small changes that are barely noticeable from a distance, or do we rather mean grand alterations to outward body appearances and new organs with novel functions and characteristics? If the latter is our definition of evolution, then the scientific underpinning is neither robust nor supported by masses of evidence. And that’s a problem.

The scientific method is defined as a set of steps:
A. Make Observations.
B. Form a Hypothesis (which generates testable predictions).
C. Test the Hypothesis through experiment and data-collection.
D. Confirmation of hypothesis leads to a new scientific Theory; (rejection leads back to A).

My reason for enumerating all this is that evolution’s support doesn’t follow the above steps.

A. Observation – Charles Darwin observed the changes of finches on the Galapagos Islands. These finches change their appearance in minor ways over time (their beaks will look different) to adapt to their climate.
B. Form a Hypothesis – these changes can accumulate over time to give rise to vastly different species.
C. Test the Hypothesis – continue to observe the finch species for the last 150 years. Result: no significant changes to them. It turns out that the shifts in these finches’ beaks occur in cycles. They adapt cyclically to the climate of their environment, but no novel outward body-arrangements occur. The finch is still a finch. Still a bird with wings, with slightly different beaks.
D. Confirm or reject – This should have been a rejection, or at best led to the theory of how small shifts in climate lead to small adaptations in species that are reversible or even cyclical. Instead, he used this to argue that changing environmental conditions can greatly change these birds, but that’s not really what the evidence teases out. Evolutionary biologists misrepresent the changes of birds on the Galapagos Islands. This is a departure from the scientific method.

There’s a lot more I wish to tell you: how DNA changes don’t happen often enough for evolution to really occur; how the fossil record really shows long eons of species never changing (like the Coelacanth, basically unchanged for hundreds of millions of years); how even though human DNA is 99% similar to chimp DNA, it is also about 60% similar to a banana; how similarities between different life-forms don't imply evolution, but common design patterns (like the basic internal similarities of different-looking automobiles). But I believe you get the picture.

The above illustrates the fundamental problem of evolution: it is not observable, testable, evidentially-verified science. It is religion. It is superstition.

Act 3: Species vs. Kind

New species do indeed “evolve”, but the term Species is not what is used in the Word of God. Genesis 1 uses the word “kind” (Hebrew: “miyn”). Kind is a more GENERAL term than species; it is used for the animals that came 2-by-2 onto Noah’s ark (Genesis 6:20; Genesis 7:14); it is used for the plants and vegetation on Day #3 (Genesis 1:11-12); it is used of the ocean- and aquatic-dwelling creatures on Day #5 (Genesis 1:21); it is used of the land animals and insects on Day #6 (Genesis 1:24-25); it is even used to describe clean and unclean animals in the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 14:13-18).

New kinds are what we’re told will not happen by The Word of God, and that is exactly the threshold experimental evolutionary scientists have not broken. Small adaptations or are observed, but no new appendages or organs or even biochemical pathways. Just tiny work-arounds in pre-existing enzyme-interactions and components of our microscopic oxygen-transport-system intentionally breaking down to fight malaria. New species of similar appearance arise, but no grand new body-modifications are generated. This is the limit of the theory of evolution: it only describes the little variations, and not the master-plans.

Richard Dawkins famously titled his book on evolution “The Blind Watchmaker”. The inherent problem with this is that an object as intricate as a fully-functioning watch was not a product of random evolution. Watches are produced by billion-dollar corporations which trade on the New York Stock Exchange. A watch is most certainly on object that was designed: or, as I prefer, “created”. The metals were mined, processed, manufactured into gears, placed into their exact locations, and quality-checked for proper functionality.

All this is not evolution. It is purposeful, not accidental. It is design. It is creation. And that is what I believe about all of life around us.

Life is not accidental, but purposeful. Life was formed by Someone greater than any of us. We are not the product of random of evolution. We were created!


Popular posts from this blog

Pentecostal Women have Long Hair

The marriage problems of King David

Eloquence & The Anointing